So Much For Diversity

George Will takes a look at the requirements for today’s students of social work — and discovers a political commissariat worthy of the Soviet Union. Universities have required pledges of loyalty to liberal political thought as a requisite for success in their social-work programs, failing students who object to being told what to think (via CapQ reader Sandeep Dath):

In 1997, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) adopted a surreptitious political agenda in the form of a new code of ethics, enjoining social workers to advocate for social justice “from local to global levels.” A widely used textbook — “Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skill” — declares that promoting “social and economic justice” is especially imperative as a response to “the conservative trends of the past three decades.” Clearly, in the social work profession’s catechism, whatever social and economic justice are, they are the opposite of conservatism.
The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the national accreditor of social work education programs, encourages — not that encouragement is required — the ideological permeation of the curricula, including mandatory student advocacy. The CSWE says students must demonstrate an ability to “understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination.”
At Arizona State University, social work students must “demonstrate compliance with the NASW Code of Ethics.” Berkeley requires compliance as proof of “suitability for the profession.” Students at the University of Central Florida “must comply” with the NASW code. At the University of Houston, students must sign a pledge of adherence. At the University of Michigan, failure to comply with the code may be deemed “academic misconduct.”
Schools’ mission statements, student manuals and course descriptions are clotted with the vocabulary of “progressive” cant — “diversity,” “inclusion,” “classism,” “ethnocentrism,” “racism,” “sexism,” “heterosexism,” “ageism,” “white privilege,” “ableism,” “contextualizes subjects,” “cultural imperialism,” “social identities and positionalities,” “biopsychosocial” problems, “a just share of society’s resources,” and on and on. What goes on under the cover of this miasma of jargon? Just what the American Association of University Professors warned against in its 1915 “Declaration of Principles” — teachers “indoctrinating” students.

In one sense, many will not find this a large hurdle to clear. While nothing about conservatism objects to social work, many of the employment opportunities come from government agencies or government funding. Traditionally, conservatives have tried to keep funding limited for these bureaucracies, which has generated a great deal of enmity among the scholars of these professions.
However, they should keep their lobbying efforts focused on their lawmakers and not their students. This goes beyond the normal in-class diatribes that many college professors use to boost their political agenda. They are now requiring pledges, signed contracts, and other explicit agreement from their students with those agendas, without which they cannot pass their classes. They also assign liberal political action projects to the students as required class projects, threatening failure if they do not comply.
Will descibes two cases from the study. In one, Missouri State required students to sign a letter to the state legislature advocating gay adoptions. When she objected, the university took administrative action against her for violating professional standards, and refused to allow her parents to attend her hearing. Only after the family sued the university did the school drop the charges and pay her financial restitution. In another, a student left the program when the professor made clear that she could not expect to pass unless the student supported abortion.
One has to wonder not at the arrogance behind these indoctrination efforts, but at the panic that drives them. The academics apparently understand that they have a losing argument, and so have stopped allowing debate on these issues. Instead, they abuse their positions of trust and authority to become a thought police, demanding unthinking loyalty to diktats rather than allowing for intellectual diversity.
It’s interesting to see how totalitarianism develops, and from which sources.

58 thoughts on “So Much For Diversity”

  1. You know, “how totalitarianism develops” isn’t what’s interesting.
    Like weeds growing in your garden, however, you do have ways to remove it, so that it doesn’t rob you of healthy production.
    In other words? You recognize the enemy.
    And, you recognize that there are weak people within your own population, who will be attracted to its message.
    What saddens me the most, is that there are so many Americans, today, unwilling to even consider calling themselves ‘republicans,’ because of the way the party is controlled.
    It’s also true about the democrats.
    Our country has basically, a two-party system. And, both parties are in the minority. Unable to argue themselves out of the giant sized hole that got dug.
    That’s what happens when extremists gain power. They try to bamboozle everyone else.
    YOu can’t do this when you’re selling cars; because, here, we see evidence on how such marketeering DESTROYED detroit. One dead city, now.
    We let academicians erode our schools. Not just K- through 12. Where choice is gonna come to bear, ahead. But all of our “socialized” college curriculums, where math is not of the essence. And, truth flew out the window. Instead? You’ve got the affirmative action crowd.
    And, there’s no magic wand.
    You’re either able to make the republican party more effective; or you’ll just lose customers.
    Hillary counts on these mistakes!
    The affirmative action crowd counts on you to shut off customers, before they even walk through your doors. Is this being done in an effort to prove “Jesus loves you?” Well, that’s a weird goal. And, one that hasn’t helped the republicans gain stature, yet.
    Bush hasn’t added a thing to the Bully Pulpit, either.
    Where you’re lucky is that it’s early in the ballgame. And, just like GM and Ford got to discover; when people are dissatisfied with your products, they’ll shop elsewhere.
    Brand loyalty just ain’t what it used to be, either.

  2. Let me put my point in a form more conducive for discussion: I encourage anybody here to define “creeping totalitarianism” in such a way that a lazy middle schooler cannot google up numerous examples of government and rightwing groups engaging in it. Loyalty oaths won’t cut it. Trying to reshape major institutions into dissent-free intellectual monocultures doesn’t make the cut. Maybe forcing a narrow agenda on unwilling citizens/foreigners? Wait, no. Fighting for the power to spy and detain American citizens without recourse to habeas corpus or the fourth Amendment kind of argues against you. I don’t think you want to bring up government keeping watch lists of undesirable activists/peaceniks/government critics.
    Sounds like a tough job but heck, where there’s a will there’s a way.

  3. Will ends his essay with two questions: “two questions arise: Why are such schools of indoctrination permitted in institutions of higher education? And why are people of all political persuasions taxed to finance this propaganda?”
    The answer? Because their is a sustained war on against not simply conservatives, but values commonly associated with conservatism. Because the extreme left feminist thought that despises the “patriarchal” structures of families, seeks to place in power those who not only can attempt to influence the “evolution” of families through policy debate, but who can, through virtue of their position, enact diktats to eviserate existing families who fall into their power.
    Those who control the schools, most governmental “social” organizations, and far too many politicians, are happy with this arrangement, and have no intention of altering the status quo.
    Oh, and those who challenge these people, risk losing their families, careers, or even freedom, because, as Will noted, the orthodoxy refuses to be challenged.
    From abuse of child protection laws, to bigoted prejudice against families that don’t toe their line, these are amongst the most dangerous people in Western society. How they winnow out the potential dissenters from their midst is the least of the problem.

  4. We see why it is so vital to the interests of those sold out to Stalinist Socialism to make sure America didn’t “think” it was appropriate to outlaw the Communist Party (or Socialism and it’s many forms).
    And yes, Virginia, they are mutually exclusive to the Constitution of the USA and the form of democratic republican government that our Founding Fathers passed down to us.
    No, they demand we not demand an oath of Allegiance to America, or to our Flag, or UNDER GOD, the God that worked in our Founding Fathers to create this nation, but we must allow in the name of tolerance, the oaths to Socialism that have already destroyed nations and peoples around the earth, and not given a single blessing to any living or dead soul on earth.

  5. Who was the infamous Social Worker who uttered these words:
    “Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialise human beings.”

  6. Well it was nice enough of them to put it in print. Kind of takes out all the misunderstandings.
    It also shows how times have changed. When I was a ADC (aid to dependent children) worker in Detroit during the early seventies the only criteria you had to have was the balls to go into the inner city projects to make house calls.

  7. You know, if we could break the fascination employers have with mere possession of some kind of college degree, the Academy’s hold on America would be gone overnight. We all already know that except as a job ticket, college is a waste of time in all but a few fields.

  8. Lesse now…
    () “Loyalty oaths” to a political ideology in order to get a college degree.
    () Campus speech codes that punish certain ideas while rewarding others.
    () The use of Congressional power to bully and intimidate a free press.
    () A sweeping crackdown on civil liberties in the name of “campaign finance reform”, and the “Fairness Doctrine”.
    () A growing official paranoia directed against Jews and Christians – complete with wild conspiracy theories that blame them for all of the ills of the world.
    () A rancid economic populism financed by super-rich plutocrats.
    () A growing sense of accountability to no one – not even their own supporters.
    The parallels between the rise of the Democrat Party and the rise of the Nazi Party become clearer every day.

  9. I encourage anybody here to define “creeping totalitarianism” in such a way that a lazy middle schooler cannot google up numerous examples of government and rightwing groups engaging in it.
    From what I have seen on the blogs over the past several years, lazy middle schoolers have been saying exactly this for some time now. So I don’t know what point you are trying to make.
    Do you have anything to say about the topic of this post?

  10. I think Tim F.’s basic point is true — there are moves towards totalitarianism from both the left and the right. Rather than argue over which side generates more of these moves, wouldn’t it be more productive to try to identify the common premises that drive both left and right totalitarians, so we can fight the phenomenon at its root?

  11. Actually, if you want to cut to the chase;
    At the last debate, Guiliani came forward and said “that America would cure a lot of problems if it just fixed what went wrong K thru 12.”
    He then voiced his position for “choice.”
    It’s “totalitarianism” only because the department of education is accountable to no one; let alone THE CUSTOMERS! (The people who send their kids to school, know full well the problems IN education.)
    By the way, I live in one of those communities with EXCELLENT schools. Can’t come in, now, without spending a million dollars for your house.
    This is another thing overlooked by the department of education. How home values are connected to neighborhood schools.
    Capitalism always outsmarts totalitarianism. And, Capitalism always succeeds.
    What Americans don’t see, yet, is the old-fashioned way of doing things, giving way to a better approach.
    While most kids haven’t been converted to communists. Far from it, actually. No matter what they regurgitate for tests.

  12. I don’t think you want to bring up government keeping watch lists of undesirable activists/peaceniks/government critics.
    Since you bring it up, why don’t you offer proof that such watch lists exist?

  13. KH Sez: “– there are moves towards totalitarianism from both the left and the right. Rather than argue over which side generates more of these moves, wouldn’t it be more productive to try to identify the common premises that drive both left and right totalitarians, so we can fight the phenomenon at its root?”
    Quoi?!
    Name me an institution of education that is dominated by conservatives bent on totalitarian goals.
    Name me a profession with sweeping powers over the lives of children and their parents dominated by conservatives saturated with a corrosive totalitarian ideology.
    Name me a conservative movement enamored of radicals of subversive stripe, committed to the over-throw of all that is in favor of their “brighter-world.”
    Show me a dissent-free conservative mono-culture; anywhere.
    Show me the Right’s murderous Che!
    Equating disagreed upon security measures in a time of war does not a decades long struggle to redefine humanity make. Yet the Left has long planned and sought and struggled to do just that. So much so that conservative thought, or common sense in war-time, provokes howls of outrage. Not because they have no power, but because they have too much. They do not have to defend their accusations with intellectual vigor, because no Leftist will challenge their vacuity; and the MSM will not let Rightist challenges see the light of print.
    Equating the ideological residue of the failed effort to Sovietize the world with conservative efforts to govern in war-time is ridiculous. It’s the equivalent of blaming a school-yard scuffle equally on the bully and his victim.
    It’s simply an excuse to ignore the real problem.

  14. We’ve had seven years of G. W. Bush’s Education Department, nothing was done to remedy these ideological thought police, we had four years of Bush I’s Education Department and nothing was done to reign in these ideological thought police, and we had four years of Reagan’s Education Department, with the same result. If conservatives can’t do one simple task in running the Education department so that lib universities and disciplines are not given carte blanche (or should that be carte rouge?) to ride roughshod over the students, if the Ed Department does not sue universities that discriminate on the basis of political ideology, then we truly deserve the thrashings we get on campus.

  15. I echo BB’s comment: there is no such thing as right-wing totalitarianism, by definition.
    Communism, fascism, socialism, et. al., are all part of the political left. Mussolini started out as a socialist; the full name of the Nazis is “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Hitler and Stalin schmoozed it up before Hitler invaded Russia. All birds of the same feather.
    After WW2, Stalin’s propaganda machine started the meme (which persists today) that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon, in order to distance himself from his pre-war association with Nazi Germany. It also proved useful as a cuationary lever against democracies—“move too far away from the left, and you’ll become fascists.” Guess what—it works.
    The proper depiction of the political spectrum has increasing state control as one moves leftward (eventually winding up in totalitarianism), and increasing individual liberty as one moves right.
    Thus, socialism, communism, fascism, thugocracies, and the Caliphate (footstomp, footstomp!) are all differnt flavors of centralized, statist governance. What sets them apart is the central organizing theme: social, religion, ultranationalism, etc. They all share intolerance for other political views, and view the individual as expendable in the name of the state.
    As one moves right on this spectrum, one finds governments that increasingly favor individual rights over the state. Perhaps the ultimate rightward point is pure Libertarianism (or, anarchy). (I wish I could draw a chart in the comments section.)
    If the GOP had any smarts (one can wish), they’d use a model like this to pummel the Hillaryites, and to better show what they should stand for — the Party of Liberty.

  16. funy thing
    i came to this blog….many times and today i just needed to read something good so i come here wishing that carol would write ….open the site glance the posts ….skip the oral sex even…..and first open comment ….carol
    thanks carol …i’m fan of yours ….that’s why i’m coming back …for a read)))

  17. I didn’t know Tim was a lazy middle schooler, but now it does seem to make some sense.
    Social work as defined might do someone some good. It might not but the possibility is there. Social work as practiced is almost entirely destructive. There are some good people in social work but they have no power and any good they might do is immediately counteracted by the agencies that employ them.
    The two concepts that make academia impossible are tenure and public employee unions. Abolish tenure and academics have to compete like everyone else. Costs go down. Quality goes up. Education returns to universities. Public employee unions, especially teachers’ unions, exist for two reasons. One is to protect teachers and other public employees from any examination of their competence. The other is to increase the ideological purity of the membership by shuttling any dissenters ( read conservatives ) into dead end positions while making sure all decisions are made by committed socialists.
    The Secretary of Education might oppose these agendas but every career bureaucrat in that Department will do everything possible to thwart reform. So long as the Federal government is involved in education, your tax dollars are being spent to indoctrinate your children and protect the indoctrinaters.

  18. Three incidents over the years, thousands of students. That’s surely below .1% incident rate, yet we’re to believe there’s a crisis brewing? Feh. Surely there are other things to focus the laser-like GOP outrage machine on.

  19. Most professions dealing with human beings (like doctors, psychiatrists, etc..) have ethical codes. The NASW code emphasizes six things:
    service
    social justice
    dignity and worth of the person
    importance of human relationships
    integrity
    competence.
    None ranks higher than any other.
    I put in ten hard years in the child welfare system. And until George Will holds a three year old child while a doctor examines her to see if her step-daddy raped her or explains to a ten year old that Mommy died last night od’ing on crack, I don’t really give a rat’s ass what he has to say about social work.

  20. Teresa,
    Lets try a mind experiment:
    Make these the statements gel into one coherent argument”
    The NASW code emphasizes six things:
    “dignity and worth of the person”
    “importance of human relationships”
    “…I don’t really give a rat’s ass what he has to say about social work”
    So am I to assume that you are not a member of the NASW? Or that you just are not very high on item 6.

  21. Went to college with a flaming liberal. She got her degree in social work.
    After the tires on her car were slashed for the third time while working in neighborhoods that “needed her”, she’d had enough.
    She does nails now.

  22. Maybe I just don’t consider George Will to be human.
    hhhhhhhmmmmm Teresa what does that say about you as a human being especially one who demands tolerance of others…
    I hope your not a parent teaching your children skills on tolerance

  23. Teresa —
    Just an obvo… You hammered a really strong ace based on personal experience. Then you totally blew it. “Not human”?? For disagreeing with you?
    Game, set, match. Thanks for playing. Next time, know when to stand pat.
    I’m jus’ sayin’…..

  24. Maybe a few of you actually need to get a sense of humour — or did I need to put a smiley emoticon after questioning whether George Will is “human.”
    I still don’t apologize for not caring what someone who has never done the job and who is willing to smear an entire profession based on two incidents thinks about social workers.
    And that doesn’t mean I don’t value “human relationships.” It means George Will doesn’t have the first idea of what it means to do the dirty work that social workers do every damn day. And, neither, frankly, do most of the rest of you.

  25. So the new initiates who wish to join the “high priesthood” of the caste of social workers must be appropriately brainwashed.
    After all, according to the AP (10/13/2007), “People who tend to the elderly, change diapers and serve up food and drinks have the highest rates of depression among U.S. workers.”
    Unrelated? I think not.

  26. “Maybe a few of you actually need to get a sense of humour — or did I need to put a smiley emoticon after questioning whether George Will is “human.” ”
    A little CYA, eh? Too late.
    “I put in ten hard years in the child welfare system. And until George Will holds a three year old child while a doctor examines her to see if her step-daddy raped her or explains to a ten year old that Mommy died last night od’ing on crack, I don’t really give a rat’s ass what he has to say about social work.”
    And that’s called moving the goalposts.
    We’re wise to you.

  27. Will criticized the universities’ entrenched methods of eliminating undesireable conservatives, not the profession. His anecdotes support his points, they are illustrative, and yes, they are effective, but his argument is based on much more than those anecdotes.
    The rest of us? Well, many of us have seen angry, superior, do-gooders, and the destruction they all too regularly leave behind.
    I doubt any of us view this as an easy or thankful task. Humanity is capable of great depravities, and bad things happen, and children, the innocent, suffer, and deserve to be ministered to.
    I think we might possibly kinda somewhere find some ground to agree, though, if we wish to be honest, that our current system is not effective. We lose too many children that were clearly in peril, and we lose too many good families to professional prejudice and outright injust interference and bigotry.
    Why can’t we debate the best way to serve children in perilous circumstances? If the best and the brightest, or the most caring and idealistic, still make no headway, leave the profession burnt-out and bitter: why does that make one who challenges the rigid and evidently ineffective ideology imposed on this cadre a non-human?
    And no, retro-active smiley faces don’t count.

  28. Why can’t we debate the best way to serve children in perilous circumstances?

    Your opinion and a buck can get a cup of coffee. Social workers will continue to do what they do, and you’ll move onto the next Outrage in the GOP Parade of Horrible Things to Whine about.

  29. Actually, I’ll continue as do most of Americans, raising my family as best I can. Hoping always for the best, hedging against the worst, and working pretty darned hard to have a say in who messes with my kids’ heads.
    You can keep that cup of coffee. Way too bitter.

  30. First off, I’m a psychologist, not a social worker. My perspective is going to differ a bit, but I think I can at least stand in the outfield of the ballpark.
    The trouble is not the degree or sincerity of the service which social workers provide (of which I have often stood in awe). Rather, the problem lies in the extent to which the definition of “service” has undergone a sort of ‘mission creep’ beyond the very dire needs which Teresa describes, and into the realm of social engineering as typified by the contested portions of the NASW Code. Such social engineering can seem very appealing when one is daily confronted by hopelessness and futility; change Society, the reasoning goes, and the plight of the suffering can be ameliorated.
    This will to change, however, often coalesces around dreams of massive societal experimentation, an attempt to create a Plan for society, push that plan into being, and let it run, tweaking as needed to maximize the ‘human-friendliness’ of the thing as you go along. In a cacophonous Republic like ours, though, this is simply never going to happen, so the best we can get are discordant modules of various Plans knocking against each other, soaking up resources and hope as they spiral in on various point attractors.
    Ironically, it is the very diversity of our society which forms the shoals on which so many of these Grand Plans founder. It is also the bedrock, however, of a more viable approach.
    As Bob1’s (6:59PM) very excellent post lays out, it is the drive to construct society according to a specific ideological agenda which history has proven –time and again– to be so very destructive. Individual humanity tends to get ground in the gears of these statist juggernauts, even when they are unleashed with the most humane of intentions.
    The great genius of this nation’s founders was the relatively scanty rule-set which they constructed to govern that nation’s operation. Such a loose set of parameters has proven to be conducive to a very robust (if often messy and most assuredly imperfect) evolutionary process. Within such a vibrant ecosystem of ideas, the maximum dynamism and creativity can be expected when individuals have the opportunity to become powerful choice-making agents, such that social and cultural change is an emergent phenomenon, rather than simply a line in some Progressive code.
    The biggest problem I have with the progressive ideas in which I was so deeply steeped during the obscene amount of time I spent in Academia is the extent to which they seek to short-circuit the evolutionary process. _Jurassic Park_ (the book, not the movie!) had much to say on the question of such well-meaning tinkering in living systems. They get sclerotic and unstable and their overall fitness degenerates to the point that the Visigoths are pretty much only an afterthought.
    Better, then, to strive to empower individuals qua individuals (vs. Members Of Disenfranchised Groups, that is), inculcate ethics of personal responsibility, instill genuine capacities for critical thought (as opposed to loyalty tests like the NASW Creed described in the post) and let society evolve. Evolution got us Chopin and and Stephen Hawking and Joseph Campbell. Revolution got us Robespierre.
    A little all over the map; it’s late.

  31. Scary stuff, these Left-wing Educrats are getting crazier and crazier…
    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    judges should have NO rights
    to protect children from lies
    brainwashing MUST continue
    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    ignore human nature
    forget economics too
    communism just feels good
    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    push bad ideologies
    ignore progressive failures
    hope is stronger than reason
    http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com
    .

  32. “One has to wonder not at the arrogance behind these indoctrination efforts, but at the panic that drives them.” CE.
    Panic? I think not. The slow and steady process has been going on (and accelerating) for decades. Great strategy for the socialists.

  33. Bob1 wrote:
    I echo BB’s comment: there is no such thing as right-wing totalitarianism, by definition.
    There is a portion of the “right wing” that would, if granted the power, immediately implement the following:
    – Any doctor that performed an abortion would be put to death.
    – Any woman that sought an abortion would be jailed and forced to bear her child to term.
    – Homosexuality would be criminalized.
    – Sodomy would be criminalized.
    – Any teacher that taught evolution would be jailed.
    – Any pharmacist that sold contraceptives would be shut down.
    – Any scientist that did genetics research would be put in prison.
    – Any books that even mention something like witchcraft or sorcery would be banned.
    – Any movie that features nudity or depicts a sexual act would be banned.
    – Alcohol consumption would be a criminal offence.
    – No business would be allowed to operate on a Sunday.
    – All children would be forced to pray in school.
    – All children would be taught that the earth is only six thousand years old and that all geological and scientific evidence to the contrary, such as the theory of evolution, is the work of the devil.
    That’s for starters.
    But the right wing’s real guilt is not the fact that a portion of it wants to limit our freedoms by such measures as I list above. Its real guilt is that it claims to be a defender of capitalism, but has stood by ineffectually as liberals and leftists have destroyed capitalism and replaced it with the regulatory/welfare state.
    At root, conservatives concede the left’s moral premise and thereby undermine their ability to fight for capitalism. Conservatives concede the moral notion that one man’s needs justify the seizure of another man’s property for their satisfaction. In fact, it was the sainted Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural speech, who invented the term, “social safety net”, and promised that funding for such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other welfare programs would not be touched.
    Instead of fighting such programs at root, conservatives think they can limit their scope and thereby contain the damage they do. This condemns conservatives to fighting a losing battle in which they wind up arguing only about how much the programs will grow — never discussing the elimination or shrinking of such programs.
    That very phenomena could be seen here at this blog where the Captain has defended Bush’s veto of the SCHIP increase by pointing out that Bush also wants to expand it, but just not by as big a margin.
    That’s the right’s greatest guilt: they are accomplices in the destruction of capitalism and the promotion of the welfare state that has us on the path to financial ruin and bankruptcy.

  34. I graduated from the UCONN School of Social Work and did post-master’s work at Smith College School of Social Work. Then, as now, it has been my experience that the field has been dominated by extreme leftists.
    It has been many years since I have belonged to the execrable NASW, an organization which has been far more interested in promoting its Marxist political agenda than in actually representing the interests of Social Workers. No way will I pay them dues.
    I just wanted the good folks out there to know that not all Social Workers are leftists.

  35. And people just like these tolerant, fair-minded, wise ones are the ones writing our public school text books and curricula.
    Is it any surprise that our history and culture is being disappeared, as if we were in Argentina?

  36. Everyone’s human, Teresa. If you’re busily excluding some individuals from the definition, social work is not for you. You cannot benefit society with such premises.

  37. Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | October 14, 2007 4:33 PM
    And one glance at the old Stalinist Agenda published into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963 shows CLEARLY that it is the DIM PARTY that has worked indefatiguedly on that Socialist Agenda with a relently precision that would be admirable on a NASA project aimed at getting a colony on the moon.
    For the record – I’m so tired of people changing the definitions of the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, or a Fascist Party – everyone knows that those three things are but different names of different Socialist Parties, same as the Liberals are yet another Socialist movement – they are all working on the same basic concepts of a dictatorship!
    It’s enough! There has been enough of that garbage. It is without excuse. It is time for them to be held to account.

  38. Posted by Bob1 | October 14, 2007 6:59 PM
    I echo BB’s comment: there is no such thing as right-wing totalitarianism, by definition.
    Communism, fascism, socialism, et. al., are all part of the political left. Mussolini started out as a socialist; the full name of the Nazis is “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Hitler and Stalin schmoozed it up before Hitler invaded Russia. All birds of the same feather.
    *****************
    EXCELLENT NAIL!
    And every single one of these Liberals KNOWS it – they all studied Marx and he explained clearly!
    And they show a vry deft understanding of it – they never accidently attack the concepts and actions that are moving their own agenda forward!

  39. Posted by Looking Glass | October 14, 2007 7:52 PM
    Richard Corliss of Time covered this back in 2004. “A liberal is someone who will defend to the death your right to agree with him.”

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    Yeah, he sure will. As long as it is YOUR death, and you are agreeing with HIM, whether you like it or not!

  40. Posted by Teresa | October 14, 2007 10:21 PM
    *****************
    Here’s a hint, Teresa:
    Since the Liberals own the Eugenics, the Abortion, and the “right to die”, and the geriatric euthenasia issues, to tell the truth, a smiley face would only look all the more macabre on you.

  41. Diversity means diversity of color, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, and even political viewpoint. Obviously, to attain diversity, one must “break a few eggheads” as it were by selectively discriminating against those who hold the majority in favor of the minority.
    The big question is when to damp the nudge. The universities, the vanguard of diversity in our country, never did and the results are what we witness today.
    But have no fear — college kids, being what they are, tend not to believe one word of the human authority figures in charge, so a new crop of conservatives is being grown even as we speak. That they will not have jobs due to their political leanings will take care of itself in due time as the old liberals die off one by one and are replaced by new liberals who aren’t. Such is the nature of academia — constant osculation of the gluteus maximus — at least until one has tenure.

  42. Posted by Michael Smith | October 15, 2007 7:48 AM
    *********************
    So basically you are saying, you pick Stalin and Karl Marx, and company, over and against our Founding Fathers of the United States of America, like George Washington, Paul Revere, James Otis, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Joseph Story, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Nathan Hale….
    Well, it is good for you to be very sure of where you stand, and what you stand for. It is good that you are very clear about your chosen path, but one thing is sure, you stay on that chosen path and you will certainly arrive at your chosen destination.

  43. The last few examples, if true, are reprehensible. But they aren’t the actions of someone losing an argument. Roe v Wade has been the law of the land for decades and that doesn’t look like it’s going to change.

  44. Posted by unclesmrgol | October 15, 2007 9:38 AM
    …Obviously, to attain diversity, one must “break a few eggheads” as it were by selectively discriminating against those who hold the majority in favor of the minority….

    *******************
    However, discriminating against the majority can only be defined as DICTATORSHIP.
    Our Founding Fathers said that minorities have their rights, but that giving them THE AUTHORITY is DICTATORSHIP, and the only way to prevent that is that the majority must be educated to VOTE to be caring about the minorities.
    TEACHING VIRTUE!
    Which the minority has BANNED.
    (WE KNOW THEY ARE THE MINORITY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT GIVE US A VOTE ON IT – THEY WENT TO AN OLIGARCHY IN LIBERAL COURTROOMS – SHOPPING CAREFULLY ALONG THE WAY!)
    The Founders all agreed and it is the definition indeed, anyway – the majority rule is that a majority even by a single vote is as absolutely the Law as if it were UNANIMOUS.
    We cannot change that – because BY DEFINITION, if it doesn’t have that ONE EXTRA VOTE over 50%, IT IS NOT THE MAJORITY – it is the MINORITY – THAT IS DICTATORSHIP.
    If the Minority disagrees to the point of refusing to obey that Majority rule, THAT is ANARCHY – and we already know the Liberals are fine with THAT – as long as it is the Liberals who are disobeying, and NOT the Conservatives IN THE MAJORITY who get by with disobeying the Liberal Minority!
    But the bottom line is, if you want a democracy or a democratic republic, or a republic, you can only rule by MAJORITY RULE – which includes that the Judge, and all of Government must always be very mindful of the social conscience of the majority in his own rulings.
    He was NEVER appointed the Social Arbitor of Social Engineering in our Constitution – THAT WOULD BE AN OLIGARCHY.
    So if diversity discriminates again the Majority, then FREEDOM has been sacrificed.
    Because “freedom” of a MINORITY to do something the Majority disagrees with is CRIMINAL LICENTIOUSNESS – ABUSE of REAL Freedom – ANARCHY.
    The majority is the only fit arbitor of what a Community tolerates or permits – because regardless of how “private” the Minority claims those actions to be, the MAJORITY has to bear the burden of it – since they have to bear the burden, they have the Right of Call.
    The only way for the minority to absolve the Majority of the Burden of their desires is for them to separate themselves out and go to another location. In a nation such as ours, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MOVE TO AN AREA OF THE WORLD THAT AGREES WITH THEIR PREMISES.
    THAT is their Freedom of diversity.
    And MSM is not the Constitutional Arbitor for the polling data on the Majority for purposes of Governmental rulings – ONLY AN ELECTION PROPOSITION CAN DO THAT AT THE BALLOT BOXES.
    So “they can say” all they want to – It isn’t THEIR authority, either!

  45. Actually, Rose, the genius of our constitutional government is that it does protect minorities (numerical, not specifically ethnic) from the tynranny of the majority as well. The majority cannot pee in the minority’s Cheerios etc. Were there not so many bent on complete Federal Socialism along with extreme left ideology throughout the system, ideological minorities in one region of the country could likely find a more comfortable enclave right within this very country; something once called a State.
    But yeah, freedom of a minority to force the majority to do other than they wish, is a special form of tyranny, and we do indeed see this in the special codes and selection processes found in the professions that certain ideologies have identified as the most quick and powerful venues for social change; ie: social engineering.

  46. Mike Smith Sez:
    “There is a portion of the “right wing” that would, if granted the power, immediately implement the following:
    – Any doctor that performed an abortion would be put to death.
    – Any woman that sought an abortion would be jailed and forced to bear her child to term.
    – Homosexuality would be criminalized.
    – Sodomy would be criminalized.
    – Any teacher that taught evolution would be jailed.
    – Any pharmacist that sold contraceptives would be shut down.
    – Any scientist that did genetics research would be put in prison.
    – Any books that even mention something like witchcraft or sorcery would be banned.
    – Any movie that features nudity or depicts a sexual act would be banned.
    – Alcohol consumption would be a criminal offence.
    – No business would be allowed to operate on a Sunday.
    – All children would be forced to pray in school.
    – All children would be taught that the earth is only six thousand years old and that all geological and scientific evidence to the contrary, such as the theory of evolution, is the work of the devil.
    That’s for starters.”
    So, Mike has found the tyrannical Rightist despots, and these hypothetical monsters were found only in his own thoughts.
    Mike, those perceptions were part of the demonization process you went through to enable you to call those that don’t agree with you “non-humans.”

  47. Apropos of Carol Herman’s advice to pull weeds before they strangle the desirable plants, we’d better Watch This Space.
    Unless I miss my guess, that’s Balloon Juice’s very own dullard Tim F commenting earlier. Out to try to make another site unreadable and uninteresting, I suppose.
    Don’t spare the Round-Up! (Speaking of loyalty oaths).
    Cordially…

  48. Posted by BB | October 15, 2007 12:41 PM
    ******************
    Our Constitution does give minorities RIGHTS. But AUTHORITY OVER THE MAJORITY is NOT one of them. They do have rights of REDRESS.
    The enclaves and cliques they have within university campuses and within cliques in our governments and bureaucracies which give them RULE are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
    However, like all rights, the MAJORITY HAS TO KEEP PRESSING to keep theirs:
    Patrick Henry – Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!
    “The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127
    John Adams – Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.
    Samuel Adams – The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
    Samuel Adams:
    If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
    Samuel Adams – If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
    Samuel Adams – A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy…. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.
    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. – Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)

  49. Here is the Response from NASW’s Executive Director that was sent to the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902281.html
    Code of Concern
    Dear Washington Post Editors:
    Conservative columnist George F. Will has taken public umbrage with the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics and its mandate that adherents advocate for social justice. In his review of a National Association of Scholars report, Mr. Will ignores the context in which professional education and training occurs—for all professions. This criticism misrepresents social work education and is a disservice to our members and the clients they serve.
    Social workers are committed to solving social problems while helping people improve their quality of life; fairness is a defining characteristic of the profession. Like all citizens of a participatory democracy, it is critical for social work students to develop the skills necessary to advocate within available legal and political structures.
    Social work students learn to use advocacy for the benefit of individuals, families and populations who are most vulnerable to the unresolved social problems of the day. Services for veterans, children, chronically ill persons, the elderly, and struggling families are improved by social work advocacy.
    Members of NASW hold a diverse array of opinions on many social issues, including abortion and homosexuality as mentioned in Will’s column. However, professional social workers are united in their commitment to respecting the rights of clients to access services and expand options available to them. Social workers do not apologize for caring about people who are marginalized by society, nor do we apologize for holding members of our profession to high standards.
    Elizabeth J. Clark, PhD, MSW, MPH
    Executive Director
    National Association of Social Workers

Leave a Reply