I’m trying to figure out how to do this without it being a First Amendment violation, but we need to be able to sue universities when professors say things that are factually untrue.
Call it Academic Malpractice, but when professors teach something that is completely untrue, they do a disservice to their students.
This piece of shit is an actual sociology professor.
We live under an undemocratic Constitution made by elite white men, many slaveholders, who built the country intentionally as a white republic for clearly defined white male freedom–expansion had to be fought for, never fully free ever https://t.co/etJVbw7wNw
— Joe Feagin (@JoeFeagin) September 24, 2020
The people wanted George Washington to be king after the Revolutionary War. He refused.
The Constitution could have been very explicit about creating a perminant elite of royalty, like every country in Europe had at the time, but instead, the Founding Fathers were very explicit in eliminating a caste system and abolishing the idea of a royalty.
They could have been very explicit about certain races and religions being absolutely in charge, but they did the opposite and banned religious tests for office. Nor is there any explicit prohibition on non-white people holding public office.
The Left has to read between the lines, reveal the invisible ink, and hear the dog whistles to find what they believe to be in the Constitution in the Constitution.
This is so factually and objectively inaccurate that to say this to students who pay tuition should be actionable, literally charging them money to lie to do them.
Of course it’s a sociologist. Sociology was taken over by leftist dickheads 50 years ago and it’s been getting worse since. Psychology isn’t any better. Neither is history.
That tweet is straight out of the 1619 Project playbook, which is in vogue in academia. No way, unfortunately, that this person will take a hit for it.
If you want to have fun with someone quoting the 1619 project trot out Adolph Reed https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/20/reed-d20.html
He’s the left wing version of Thomas Sowell and hates critical race theory with the fury of a thousand suns because identity politics distracts attention from the class struggle. He’s not wrong and attacking “white fragility” from the far left is fun
Great link — thank you!
And here’s another from the same site I’d saved a while ago:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html
What university employs this mental defective?
The obvious solution, given the 1st Amendment, is public shaming and boycott.
Of course the Constitution is undemocratic, the founders feared a democracy. Democracy leads to mob rule and bloodshed. Most of the founders lived to see that fear realized in the French Revolution and the reign of terror.
The founders created a Federal Republic where the federal government was only powerful enough to do the minimum things needed that a national government needed to do. The power granted to the federal government included things like collecting taxes, arbitrate differences between states, regulate commerce between states, negotiate treaties with foreign nations on behalf of all the states, and provide a central command structure for the states militias in time of war. The founders also, belatedly, realized that an explicit enumeration of restrictions on the federal government to protect the states and the people from the tyranny of the majority.
I learned the above in High School civics classes, I wonder where Prof. Feagin learned his version. BTW it used to be that one of the few things that a tenured professor could get fired for was academic malpractice; however, I doubt that his employer will take that action.
At least part of the statement is in fact factually true: it was built as a republic, not a democracy, by white men, many of them slaveholders. And in fact a significant number of those slaveholders insisted on protections for the institution of slavery to be included in the Constitution.
While I disagree with the “white republic” part, the fact is that the Founders were for the most part elite white men, who at the founding extended the vote only to males who owned property. That doesn’t make the Constitution any less remarkable, nor any less remarkable the amazing expansion of suffrage through the years. The limitation of property ownership ended in most states fairly early, and by the time of the constitutional extension of suffrage to women with the 19th Amendment, most States were already permitting women to vote. The shame of slavery, and the even deeper shame of a century of JIm Crow, black codes, redlining, and segregation (all championed by the Democrat party, BTW) has had lasting effects.
The bigger story, however: Liberty was built into this country’s DNA. Originally, that liberty was limited to white men. That is simply a reflection of another time. The foundation for the expansion of that liberty was also built in, however, and it quickly spread (though not quickly enough).
I don’t want American history taught as a story of oppression, because that is not the story of America. The story of America is the foundation built on liberty, and the historical expansion of that liberty. But neither do I want American history whitewashed of its sins.
I agree America has its share of sins, but no country is perfect.
America is alone in having been founded on principles of freedom and liberty, and its founding documents written as limits on the government and not rules for the people.
And as I like to point out to people, America is alone in having abolished slavery, willingly and relatively quickly (a person who remembered the founding could have also lived to see emancipation), and without external intervention from other nations.
Yes, it took another century (plus some) for civil rights to catch up, and that’s not a great thing, but having voluntarily abolished slavery and starting the expansion of freedom has to count for something.
People like this sociology professor only see that slavery existed at the founding, and the documents were written by white men, and that makes the whole thing inherently evil. They refuse to acknowledge the leaps and bounds of progress we’ve made since, as that would undermine and invalidate their entire argument.
It started long before the 1619 Project. “Professor” Howard Zinn gained a LOT of fans in academia with his bit of fiction called A People’s History of the United States.
Interesting concept. Write a history book from the perspective of the losers. Not something that should be used in serious academic study. Well outside of a creative writing course that is.
I suppose that, individually or as a “class”, students might be able to sue civilly for fraud. They might be able to include the institution too for knowingly allowing or promoting fraud. Curriculum is generally vetted by a faculty committee, isn’t it?
The student(s) would probably have to show “damage” to prevail.
“Undemocratic”?
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say he’s never read the Constitution that he’s railing against.
Proof: He’s not aware of Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
In other words, the people got to vote on it. And they did. And they approved it.
It set up a Republican form of government, but the people had to vote it in to ratify it.
His “undemocratic” gripe is unfounded.
Well, sure. Neil Smith concocted a wonderful phrase that perfectly captures this alleged University faculty member, and explains how he could come up with what he wrote:
“…with the mental capacity of a finely diced Planarian“.