Kathleen Marquardt: EXTREMELY EARLY ONSET OF SENILITY IN YOUTH
EXTREMELY EARLY ONSET OF SENILITY IN YOUTH – “Individuals have no rights on campus.”
by Kathleen Marquardt
Tom asked me to put together a piece on the lunacy of today’s youth. Because I have no imagination, I am sticking with stories I have found showing what is going on in today’s world of those younger than maybe 35. As I see it, the schools have achieved (at least 75% or more) the goal of changing American children’s attitudes, values, and beliefs. To do that, they had to dumb them down severely.
One measure of this accomplishment, IMHO, is the extreme amount of political correctness in today’s world of youth – colleges, elhi, and media. Every time that I think p.c.ness has been taken as far as it can go, I am proven wrong by a new no-no, e.g., today I read where some school said you can change your gender of choice daily, if you so chose. With everything so amorphous, there is no base, no foundation upon which values, attitudes, and beliefs can be grounded. It is as if moral relativity has metastasized into every atom of life. Someone, please tell me I am wrong – and show me why.
“There has never been a civilization that’s had perpetual adolescence before. Adolescence itself is only about a 2,500 year old concept, and it’s a pretty special gift.” Taking a broad view of human history, Sasse spoke of adolescence as a relatively new phenomenon allowing young persons to develop mind and spirit beyond pubescent maturation.
Contemporary sociological phenomena, added Sasse, have extended the adolescent phase to unhealthy lengths; stultifying of both individual actualization and broader civilizational development.
On the pedagogical front, Sasse critiqued the status quo of classrooms as the primary means of educating teenagers. “Progressive” educational approaches to “protect kids from work,” he said, interfered with education’s higher purpose of “freeing kids] up to find meaning in work:” “I think it’s highly dangerous to think that the main thing fourteen- to eighteen-year-olds should do is sit still and be in a classroom inside for the majority of their waking hours, Monday through Friday.”
Over the past couple years; the concept of privilege has grown to be a ubiquitous part of the public discourse. It’s moved from a topic confined in large part to the ivory towers of academia, to one that is a commonplace aspect of mainstream political and social commentary. Its propagation can be seen in the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, perhaps the most visible (or at least most militant) force for racial identity politics.
Washington Sophomore Trent Griliphaen said he was inspired by the movement at The University of California, and that he “thinks that Trump’s construction of the wall is just an extension of his penis, and an expression of Patriarchal rape culture. Really, by building the wall, we are raping the Mexican people, and I am no longer willing to be a perpetrator of rape culture. If I remove my penis, I am making a statement that I reject this mentality.”
“I heard about what was happening in California, and new that this kind of movement could gain traction up here – we are a progressive state. I kind of feel guilty, I’m removing my penis, but one of the other guys is going to castrate himself, and he’s even considering taking off a couple of fingers” stated Griliphaen.
Town halls, protests, shouting matches and full-on riots are now commonplace throughout the country and now, leaders of the so-called “resistance” are using the firing of FBI Director James Comey to stoke the fire.
Speaking with reporter Sharyl Attkisson, North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows that much of the funding behind the protests come from shadowy figures. “Well we do see some of that. I mean unfortunately we’ve seen a lot of that. They certainly have a name and they certainly have a face.”
For an institution that claims it encourages diversity, where were you yesterday when we needed you the most? Why do you encourage us to come here? Yet were forced to defend our existence every day on this campus.
I was utterly disgusted with students who chose to demean and appropriate Mexican culture. I walked on campus miserable as if I didn’t belong. As a black woman, I was forced to become the very thing society deemed me to be; angry.
Individuals have no rights on campus. Intersectional tribes do. The way that these tribes negotiate conflicting rights is a mix of Kafka and Orwell. In Orwell’s homeland, Oxford University’s Equality and Diversity Unit (a name that could easily have leaped from the pages of 1984) warned students that failing to make eye contact was a racist microaggression. The usual sensible responses accomplished nothing. Then autistic students complained that the microaggression guidelines were themselves a microaggression against students with disabilities. And the “Unit” quickly apologized and retreated.
The absurdity of the situation reeks of old Soviet anecdotes. But the same system exists in the United States.
An individual’s right to free speech on campus derives from his membership in a group. What might be dangerously offensive from a white man is fully legal when coming from a Latino woman or a Muslim man.
I am waiting (not with bated breath) for someone out there to show me there is hope for our future, that there are hordes of brilliant, hard-working, sincere, youth who will carry on Western Culture.