Wednesday, 24 July 2013 12:00

Higher Education: Brainwashing 101

Written by 

“Language is the source of misunderstanding,” said the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery. But a confusion of tongues was not the cause of Abigail Beardsley’s consternation over what she was expected to learn in a French language course she took at Penn State University in the spring of 2007. Described in the college catalogue as a course in French language and culture, it inexplicably included a viewing of the Michael Moore film, Sicko, an English-language “documentary” about inadequacies of the healthcare system in the United States and a paean to the state-run medical care in other lands. The following semester, Beardsley addressed a formal complaint to the chairman of the university’s French Department about the insertion of a movie about the American practice of medicine in a course that, she wrote, was supposed to be about “real-life language use, the integration of language and culture and the development of the four skills: listening, speaking, reading, writing.” In other words, an academic exercise.

Yet the professor “took valuable class time” for the Moore film, which the student described as “an attack on the free market health care system in the United States and an endorsement of socialized medicine in England, Canada, France and Communist Cuba.” She went on to point out the absence of any “critical evaluation of the film” or contrary views of socialized medicine presented by the professor that might have been useful to students in forming their own opinions on the subject. That, she noted, was contrary to a university policy requiring instructors to provide students with “access to those materials which they need to think intelligently.” The same policy, Beardsley noted, instructed professors “not to introduce controversial materials that are irrelevant to the class subject and outside their area of expertise.”

The department chairman dismissed her appeal and backed the professor’s decision to make the viewing of a film attacking the American healthcare system a component of a French language course. The student’s complaint and its rejection were related in Indoctrination U by David Horowitz, who has documented what he describes as “the widespread acceptance of political agitation as a suitable form of classroom instruction.” The problem is not just professors preaching their mostly liberal or “progressive” political views as a substitute for academic instruction, even in courses whose subject matter bears no realistic connection to those political opinions. It is also the fact that little to no room is allowed for different, much less opposing, viewpoints, as Beardsley noted in her letter.

No Discussion Allowed

“Ideas deemed ‘reactionary’ and ‘politically incorrect’ are shut down by ‘speech codes’ and collective disapproval” by those who regard teaching as “a partisan activity and the university as a platform from which they hope to change the world,” Horowitz wrote. “Ideas that oppose left-wing orthodoxy — opposition to racial preferences, belief in innate differences between men and women, or, more recently, support for America’s war in Iraq — are regarded as morally unacceptable or simply indecent. The proponents of such ideas are regarded as deviants from the academic norm, to be marginalized or shunned.” Professors, meanwhile, increasingly use their classrooms as forums in which to preach their often passionately held views to a virtually captive audience, frequently on matters far outside their areas of expertise. Horowitz, who claimed to have interviewed hundreds of students at dozens of colleges and universities on the subject, wrote: “In the course of the interviews, I rarely encountered a student who had not been subject to such in-class abuse.”

Yet in many schools the indoctrination begins well before the incoming freshmen enter their first college classes. Orientation programs are often another name for indoctrination into a “progressive” worldview that requires the student to drop as mental contraband any allegedly racist, reactionary, chauvinistic, or “homophobic” views he or she may have contracted like a communicable disease in a home, school, or church environment. One freshman orientation program that has been adopted at nearly 100 colleges and universities is called the “tunnel of oppression” that the new students must traverse, as they learn about the evils of “white privilege” and sit through lectures informing them that they are part of a “rape culture.” “Resident advisers” are hired to help the students work their way to such pre-ordained conclusions as the certainty that religious parents hate their “gay” children and university campuses are inhospitable to Muslims. The resident adviser must first himself or herself be immersed in the race-conscious, feminist, class-warfare ideology. A former “RA” at DePauw University in Indiana described the regimentation she experienced to Robert Shibley, senior vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a non-profit organization fighting restrictions on the freedom of speech and the efforts at thought control in schools.

The prospective RA’s were instructed never to think of themselves as merely people, but were to regard themselves, first and foremost, according to their respective classifications: “black” or “white” or “Asian” or “heterosexual” or “queer.” They were required to speak in bigoted stereotypes while being told that was what they were really thinking “deep down.”

“For all we hear about faculty ideological or political bias,” wrote Shibley, “campus administrators are often worse when it comes to brainwashing students.” A radical feminist agenda has permeated the culture of colleges and universities, large and small, in the East and West, and in the heartland of America. In the fall of 2010, Hamilton College in New York required all male freshman students to attend a “She Fears You” presentation to make them aware of the “rape culture” of which they were allegedly a part and of the need to change their “rape supportive” beliefs and attitudes.

“Did Hamilton warn incoming female students of the campus ‘rape culture’ before it took their tuition?” wrote Shibley. “I doubt it. But publicity did force administrators to make the seminar optional — just minutes before it started.”

Freshman orientation as practiced at the University of Delaware also came to the attention of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The very fact that the university labeled its orientation a “treatment” program suggested it was an exercise in the type of mental hygiene that might fairly be described as “brainwashing.” The “educational” materials used in the “treatment” of the new arrivals on campus included a glossary that defined racism as a term that “applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.)” Non-racist, on the other hand, was officially a “non term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism.” Through required attendance at lectures and one-on-one meetings with residence assistants, students learned what views were acceptable (or mandatory) on matters of “social justice” and a “sustainable” environment. (One program urged students to commit to reducing their ecological “footprint” by 20 percent.) The code of political correctness even covered door decorations in the dormitories.

Students were evaluated on how they responded to the “treatment,” with the residence assistants providing written reports to school administrators on the “best” and the “worst” students in the one-on-one sessions. Among the “worst” was a student who complained of having “diversity shoved down [her] throat” and who responded to the question “When did you discover your sexual identity?” with a crisp: “That is none of your damn business.” Another who questioned why the university needed to “force all this diversity stuff” on the students was also labeled one of the “worst.”

In a strongly worded letter to the university president, Samantha Harris, FIRE’s director of legal and public advocacy, questioned the University of Delaware’s commitment to education, as opposed to indoctrination:

The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of “treatment” for their incorrect attitudes reveals the university’s utter lack of respect both for its students and for the fundamental right to freedom of conscience. And the university’s definition of learning not as a process of acquiring knowledge or technical skill, but rather as the attainment of specific attitudinal or behavioral changes, represents a distorted idea of “education” that one would more easily associate with a Soviet prison camp than with an American institution of higher education. [Emphasis in original.]

The university formally dropped its “treatment” program after the FIRE protest brought publicity, but a series of Residential Curriculum Institutes, based on the Delaware program, has spread onto campuses throughout the country.

Composition of College Classes

Beyond orientation programs, curriculum is another area in which higher education has undergone radical change, as an English professor at a large Midwestern university sadly told The New American. Even a basic freshman course such as English Composition has long ceased to have anything to do with grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure, he said — the type of things a student might be expected to master in learning to write well. English courses and the social sciences are joined together in a program called Connect, in which each course must address three signature issues: sustainability (environmentalism), civic engagement (political activism), and intercultural engagement (multiculturalism).

“Everything from Theater to Philosophy to History to English has, in effect, become sociology,” the professor said. “Teaching subject matter has become less important than teaching a very political perspective.” Regardless of what subject and in which department students are studying, “they get taught the same thing over and over: a radical critique of the entire American social structure, an indictment of capitalism, anti-Christian propaganda, and collectivism over individuality.... It all comes down to race, class and gender. And sexuality, now that they are pushing, in a radical way, homosexuality.”

A strict requirement of “sensitivity” and a heavy emphasis on multiculturalism have combined to create an environment in which “the only culture we’re ever allowed to criticize is our own,” the professor said. He cited as an example the “Jesus Stomp” instructor at Florida Atlantic University, who, as part of an Intercultural Communications course, instructed his students to write the name “Jesus” on a piece of paper and then step on it. In the uproar that followed, the instructor, Deandre Poole, received threats and was placed on paid administrative leave by the university. He has been reinstated to teach classes this summer and fall, but has been limited to online courses for security reasons, said Heather Coltman, the interim dean at the university’s College of Arts and Letters. The school will decide in December if Poole will be welcomed back into the classroom for next year’s spring semester, Coltman said.

“You would never in a million years see anyone do that with the name Mohammed. You couldn’t do that with Hillary Clinton’s name. You couldn’t do that with nearly any other name, or you’d be fired,” said the English professor, who preferred not to be identified because he does not yet have tenure in his present job. Tenure isn’t really a protection of academic freedom, he maintains, but is a means of weeding out professors who are not “ideologically pure enough” to remain on the faculty. “There’s a reason why I’ve taught at seven different universities in 20 years,” he said.

Yet for all the emphasis institutions of higher learning place on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues and on race-based courses and Women’s Studies programs, courses not being taught at many colleges and universities are conspicuous by their absence. Last fall the California Association of Scholars issued a report to the regents of the University of California sharply critical of the number of traditional course requirements that have been dropped from the curricula at the various campuses of the statewide university. Entitled “A Crisis of Competence,” the report attributes the deletions to what is described in the subtitle as “The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California.”

Among the glaring omissions detailed by the scholars is the fact that none of the nine general campuses in the university system requires students to study the history of the United States or of Western civilization. English majors on some campuses may graduate without taking a course in Shakespeare. Students in political science programs get diplomas without a course in American politics. The omissions are not the result of accident or neglect. A study by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute found more faculty members believe they should teach students to be agents of social change than believe it is important to teach the classics of Western civilization.

The leftward tilt of college and university faculties is nothing new. Numerous studies in recent decades have shown an overwhelming majority of college professors to be left-liberal in ideology and Democratic in party affiliation. But increasingly they seem to be no longer convinced of the need to make any genuine effort at, or pretense of, refraining from making their personal political and social ideals the content of classroom instruction. The school administrators, the California report concludes, “far from performing their role as the university’s quality control mechanism, now routinely function as the enablers, protectors, and even apologists for the politicized university and its degraded scholarly and educational standards.”

At a time when college education costs upwards of $45,000 a year at private institutions and tens of thousands at most state-sponsored universities, the emphasis on racial and cultural diversity and advocacy of social change has come at the expense of academic achievement. “Far too many” students, the California report said, have not learned to write effectively or to read “a reasonably complex book.” Students and their parents, in other words, are paying more and getting less in genuine education.

Yet despite tuition costs that have risen dramatically higher than inflation for three decades, the spending spree in higher education continues, aided and abetted by federal expenditures for research, Pell Grants, and student loans. Much of the spending goes into hiring more administrators to run more diversity programs. Officials at the University of California’s San Diego campus, for example, created a new position called “vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion,” despite a large number of “diversitycrats” already on the school’s administrative payroll. The money for the new vice chancellorship, wrote columnist Michael Barone, “could have supported two of the three cancer researchers that the campus lost to Rice University in Houston, a private school that apparently takes the strange view that hard science is more important than diversity facilitators.” The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Barone noted, saved some money by consolidating two science departments, while increasing spending on its five diversity-multicultural offices.

Mainly Conservative Controls

While ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic diversity appears to be prized at the nation’s schools of higher learning, intellectual diversity is something to be silenced where it can’t be eliminated altogether.

Not all too surprisingly, given the controls on free speech that universities now favor, the suppression of free speech on campus is not only aimed at silencing conservative thought. In Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, author Greg Lukianoff begins by recounting the ordeal of a student, Hayden Barnes, who had been expelled from Valdosta State University in Georgia for protesting, on Facebook and in a letter to the editor of the student newspaper, the university’s decision to spend $30 million on the construction of two parking garages. In the student’s environmentalist crusade against the garages and the automobiles it would house, he invoked what Lukianoff describes as “the classic liberal fight song, ‘No Blood for Oil.’” After Lukianoff, an attorney and the president of FIRE, launched a publicity campaign and finally a legal action to have the expulsion overturned, the university’s Board of Regents reversed the decision and offered readmission to Barnes, who, by that time, was completing his education at another institution.

But Lukianoff, who describes himself as a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat, acknowledges that it is conservative-minded students who are most directly affected by the emphasis on “speech codes” and political correctness on college campuses. “While many attempts at censorship are apolitical,” he notes, “you are far more likely to get in trouble on campus for opposing, for example, affirmative action, gay marriage and abortion rights, than you are for supporting them.”

Lukianoff acknowledges being once “hissed at” during a libertarian student conference for being a Democrat, but notes “it is far more common that I am vilified as an evil conservative for defending free speech on campus,” a reaction he has found to be both commonplace and odd. “Isn’t freedom of speech quintessentially a liberal issue?” he asks.

The problem is not new, but it has grown dramatically worse since a young William F. Buckley described the anti-free market, anti-religion intellectual environment at his Ivy League university in God and Man at Yale, way back in 1950. Many parents and students opposed to the indoctrination routinely imposed at so many colleges and universities are nonetheless paying the increasingly expensive piper for educational tunes hostile to their own deeply held values and traditions. Those of a conservative or libertarian persuasion can find alternatives in mostly small, conservative and/or religious colleges and universities. But the nation should be able to expect more from secular, “mainstream” establishments of higher education than to find them as enclaves of a rigid ideological regimentation.

Speech codes that punish students for comments that may offend or provoke a protected race, ethnic group, gender, or persons of a different “sexual orientation” stifle not only speech but thought, preventing the free exchange of ideas in a climate hospitable to debate. As George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley has noted, the nation has gone far beyond the famous dictum of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that the freedom of speech does not confer upon anyone the right to falsely cry fire in a theater. “Our entire society is being treated as a crowded theater,” wrote Turley, “and talking about whole subjects is now akin to shouting fire.”

The once-proud liberal notion of a “values-free” education has long since given way to an educational regime that imposes values that are hostile to freedom, faith, and morality and intolerant of opposing points of view that have the potential of stimulating serious debate about the reigning tenets of a “progressive” creed and ideology. A 2010 survey of 24,000 students by the Association of American Colleges and Universities found only 30 percent of college seniors strongly agreed with the statement: “It is safe to have unpopular views on campus.” More telling, perhaps, is the fact that only 16.7 percent of faculty members registered a strong agreement with that statement. Higher education in recent decades has become dramatically higher in cost, but remarkably lower in the standards it upholds as a university’s ideal. The late Clark Kerr, former president of the University of California, was no doubt being facetious when he said that the three-fold purpose of the university was to “provide sex for the students, sports for the alumni and parking for the faculty.” Or perhaps he was exaggerating only a bit.

Some economists claim that the rapidly rising costs of college education, propped up by government grants and subsidized loans, have created an economic bubble in the higher education market that will soon burst as the housing bubble did in 2008. Perhaps economic realities will succeed where concern for fairness and decency has failed in focusing minds of professional educators and laymen alike on the meaning and purpose of higher education. Aspiring students in the not-too-distant future may find the doors locked at one or more of our most prestigious universities, with a sign on the lawn in front of the administration building telling the sad story: “Gone out of business. Didn’t know what our business was.”


  • Comment Link may Thursday, 21 November 2013 13:50 posted by may

    BW – Introduction
    Most of informations on brain washing on internet seem dating from the sixties, it seem necessary to give an update since brain washing techniques have evolved a lot this past 50 years. Now it is very easy to hypnotize anyone with a drug similar to GHB and under hypnosys with the help of addicted drug, it is easy for a large organisation to turn anyone into a devoted slave in only a few months.The power of Brainwashing are now far beyond what it was possible to do in the fifties. Governements now use this technology for training senators, top rock stars, top Actors, etc.. Theses very powerfull methodologies open some new questions, specially on
    • right to use
    • Protection of people
    • scope limits
    • futur of brain washing thechonoly
    How to take anyone in the “game”
    When the subject is depressed, near suicide, then the “game” can start. First it start by hypnosis the subject, the GHB is helpfull at this point. Then under hypnosis it is necessary to order him to not talk about his to anyone, and to make him believe that the organisation will destroy him if he talk of what happening to him to anyone. Also we need to make him believe that nobody will believe this anyway.
    Then let’s print in his brain to come back in hypnosis with some code, and to not remember what happened during the session.
    Then it is possible to give him little drug before the end of the hypnosis session, so after the session he will think he is ill, because too much work for example. The day after he will wonder what happened but without understanding. Then we have a subject which can come back in hypnosis any time and he will not talk about this to anyone
    So it is possible to work on him during hypnosis session. It is better if the company for which he work for is involved, so the sessions can occur at work. Having some ghb in the coffee before the sessions is helpfull and help to do the session daily, the subject will not consciencously know perfectly what is happening to him. He will be instructed to forget everything.
    Invisible BrainWashing – Subliminal invisible speech voice
    When the subject is under hypnosis it is possible to order him to not “hear” some specific sounds, even after he is out of hypnotic sleep. When he will hear the sound , his consciousness will not be aware of at all.It is required to record a speech, then to modify the record a lot with some electronic device to make the voice look like a waterfall.The voice must be dificult to understand , without attention it look like a waterfall.Then under hypnosis the subject will be ordered to never hear at all all sounds like this.Then the speech record is played later, while the subject is doing work for example. The speech words will be perceived at some inconscious level, but not at the consciousness level. The speech record must be played daily.Then the subject will start having sometimes some ideas similar to the speech records he was listening, but he will think the ideas come from him.He will start slowly going in a new direction without ever noticing someone is manipulating him.

    Invisible BrainWashing – Send the subconscious to a direction
    Repeating thousand time a speech, giving new ideas to someone is not enough to make someone change.Our decisions are guided by our subconscious not our conscious brain.To make someone taking a decision differently, it is necessary to change his subconscious brain, not his “logical” brain.
    The potatoes example :
    If someone do not like potatoes it is not because his body do not like, it is because when he tasted potatoes for the first time something bad was happenning (very bad news for example, bad situation, etc…) – then this preference is stored as a “knowledge” and will maybe never change.
    So to make him like potatoes again it is possible under hypnosis to make him feel very weel , then make him eating some little potatoes. repeat 10 times. Then he will start like potatoes because he will remember to feel well while eating potatoes. So he may think it is eating potatoes wich make him feeling well. So he will think potatoes are good for him. Later if someone ask him to try , he may try and then he will remember what he learned 10 times, so he will fell well, then he will change his “knowledge” about potatoes.
    A strong method to give subconscious “preferences” :
    if we want to change an opinion about something , then stronger stimuli is sex.If the subject is very confident with the hypnotiser, it is possible to make him feeling an orgasm “on order”.First it is necessary to make him confortable feeling orgasms.Then it is possible to associate feeling an orgasm with some phrase/words.The word can be the name of someone, a company name, anything simple.Later at a conscious level he will not remember the orgasm, but when he will think/hear the words he will think it is a very very good thing at subconscious level, and will act in consequence

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Tuesday, 30 July 2013 01:11 posted by Heidi Preston

    It starts in Kindergarten. We were given pictures to color in and to stay within the lines. What if they changed that you were allowed to draw your own picture and color it any way you liked? That would be too much freedom of thought and you might not learn to "follow" directions later in life. Edward Bernay's called it programing and he learned it from his Uncle Sigmund Freud but I guess Freud was going through his 'anal' phase of perfection. LOL

  • Comment Link apollonian Thursday, 25 July 2013 16:27 posted by apollonian

    What do u expect for edjumacation in a system flush w. paper money issued by that legalized COUNTERFEITING scam called the US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed)?

    EVERYTHING about this edjumacation system must PROP-up, complement, and support that basic COUNTERFEIT scam--that COUNTERFEITING and money-system is the end-all and be-all for things.

    So therefore the edjumacation is designed so that NO ONE will or can possibly challenge that basic criminal enterprise, the US Fed.

    Challenging such Fed COUNTERFEITING then is "racist," ho ho ho--not kosher--get it?

    Edjumacation in such a criminal system is designed not only for "brain-washing," but for making people stupid and psychotic--PROPAGANDA.

    Ultimately, the people are scheduled for total extermination according to AGENDA-21

  • Comment Link Frank M. Pelteson Thursday, 25 July 2013 10:32 posted by Frank M. Pelteson

    It is valuable to read Charlotte Yserbit's book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, see and the youtube at titled "The Untold Historical Truth Of American Education," which exposes the conspiratorial aspects of the field of education.

  • Comment Link R Jensen Thursday, 25 July 2013 07:11 posted by R Jensen

    "...the only cure for it is ending tenure..."

    That will not cure the problem. That will just shift the balance of power to the administrators. You know, the people who think that a universities prestige is directly proportional to the amount of tuition charged?

  • Comment Link REMant Wednesday, 24 July 2013 19:52 posted by REMant

    It's worst in non-skill areas, which involve interpretation, where students, esp dissertation writers, are routinely graded on whether they agree with the professors, not whether they know the subject. A good part of law school is devoted to the same, accompanied by relevant extracurricular activities. Interpretation is, of course, a major issue in history, but where the social sciences and philosophy are not given over to utter nonsense, they are chock-a-block with liberal moralizing as well. It is completely impossible anymore to get through a school of education without being forced to regurgitate varieties of socialism or political correctness. Tho I know someone who was flunked by one qual reader for answering a question about the efficacy of the classical curriculum without referring to pluralism (ie, diversity) MORE THAN 30 YEARS AGO. Many may not be aware of it, but we saw this in the 1950s and during Vietnam, then from a neocon perspective, Buckley's experience notwithstanding. It's the result of "academic freedom," however, not its absence, and the only cure for it is ending tenure, which is happening financially already, and issue credentials based on independent examination by professional bodies, tho I'm not sure that sufficient. At least it removes the problem from the campuses.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in