Feb. 23, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
41:57
3601 No Campus for White Men | Scott Greer and Stefan Molyneux
No Campus for White Men shines a bright light on the growing obsession with diversity, victimization and identity politics on today's college campuses, and shows how it is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmosphere that can only lead, ultimately, to ever greater polarization in American society.Scott Greer is an editor and columnist with The Daily Caller and is the author of “No Campus for White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination.”Book: http://www.fdrurl.com/No-Campus-for-White-MenTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/ScottMGreerDaily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/author/scott-greerFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Here with Scott Greer, G-R-E-E-R. He's an editor and columnist with The Daily Caller, and is the author of a very interesting book.
Ooh, hey, young feel like going to college?
Parents feel like paying for college?
Please, for the love of all that's holy, pick up this book first.
It may save you quite a lot of time, money, and indoctrination.
The book is called No Campus for White Men, The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful...
Well, Scott, thanks for taking the time today.
Hey, thanks for having me on, Stefan.
I guess all of us who are on social media and watching the news and so on have seen some rather challenging sites coming out of universities.
And for me, this goes back...
I went to three different universities in Canada and...
I found that it was just starting, this political correctness thing was just starting to come in.
It was like this, I was like running out, you know, like the hero in the movie like runs away from the exploding fire trucks or something.
And it's like I was just getting out of my graduate degree when I could see this black wave of political correctness starting to sort of come up behind me.
And I managed to sort of get out just in time because what seems to have gone on since is a remarkable transformation of Of what used to be a bastion of the best and the brightest and those with the intellectual constitutions to take on the toughest challenges.
Boy, it really doesn't look that way anymore.
No, not at all.
I mean, it's been kind of a slow building up thing with college campuses of what we see now and basically kind of the skyrocketing rate of the minority identity politics that has been kind of taken over a college campus.
I mean, if you look at what was gearing up in the 1960s and driving the protest movements then, it was typically a result of old-fashioned leftism.
It was anti-war.
We're wanting to bring down the system.
We want more free speech.
It was kind of more in keeping with the leftists, with traditional leftism in North America.
But now what we're seeing is more speech suppression.
Where is this kind of...
The idea that students need to be protected from ideas coming from.
And really what's happening is that the two big things that are happening in college campus are identity politics and victimhood culture.
Identity politics in practice on college campus essentially tells minority students that they need to identify with a certain identity that marks them from the dominant majority of North America.
Thus, no identity politics for white men.
That's almost like no identity politics on campus for white men.
It has to be based around a minority identity that's about gaining more power, more status, and more privilege on a college campus.
So if you're an African-American man, that becomes your core part of your identity and your core part of your politics.
If you're a gay Latino, you combine those two identities together to really kind of create...
Your special own kind of identity politics that you push.
But it's all about kind of grouping people into these individual tribes, and then they compete as a group for their privileges that will only be assigned to them.
I mean, it just broke today that at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one of the best public universities in America, students are now demanding free tuition for African-American students, which sounds pretty ridiculous.
That is basically giving them special status at the school Based on their skin color.
Simply based on their skin color.
And nothing else.
But that's very typical for this.
And the other trait of college campuses right now that goes hand in hand with identity politics is victimhood culture.
Basically, the kind of moral culture being developed on a college campus is not based around being the most honorable person or having the most achievements are based on that every person has dignity as a citizen of the United States or as a human being, but on the fact that moral status is a sign on who can demonstrate that they're the most oppressed victim around. but on the fact that moral status is a sign And the worst thing you can be in the system is privilege.
That's why white men are put at the bottom of the moral hierarchy, because they have all this unfair privilege around with them, and they've dominated all the other races and groups for history.
And that's just terrible.
So that's why they're put at the bottom of the moral hierarchy in the system.
But at the top are all these minority groups that can demonstrate that, well, we're oppressed victims because the dominant majority of America always oppresses us and pushes us down.
Even though there might not be true in the case today, they can still claim that based on history or even just fantasy.
And it has nothing to do with socioeconomic background.
So you can be the son of a poor coal miner from West Virginia.
But if you're white, you're privileged.
At the same time, you can be the daughter of an African-American corporate executive.
But since you're African-American, you're apparently a victim.
So it's all based on culture, identity and gender identity, racial identity and no bearing on socioeconomic status.
Yeah, I mean, I think different viewpoints is always fantastic.
And it's one of the great challenges when you come out with ideas into the world to have people disagree with you is, you know, that the blade gets sharpened with sparks and friction.
So I think that's all wonderful.
But I thought that the whole point of diversity was to have a multiplicity of viewpoints under the same general rule set.
Because, you know, the difference between a country...
Rich in diversity, I guess you could say, is a country where everyone agrees to the same rules, like free speech and so on, and then disagrees on things, and that to me is very healthy.
I mean, you can have scientists from all over the world gather together for a scientific conference, but nobody suggests that they should read tea leaves or examine chicken entrails to determine the viability of theories.
They're all coming together from different perspectives under the same rule called the scientific method.
To me, the difference between diversity and balkanization, which is when you then have groups all trying to get the power of the state to inflict their views on others and extract resources from opposing groups and so on, is when you fragment into different rule sets and defend those vociferously, and that seems to be happening quite a lot.
No, that's exactly what's happening.
The type of diversity wanted is not a diversity viewpoint or even really a diversity of backgrounds.
It's just about having kind of almost racial quotas, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to affirmative action, schools cannot base admissions policies on racial quotas, but they still in some ways end up because they just favor students based on their skin color or some other type of ethnic background that they have.
And all it is is basically to have a multiplicity of students, you know, multiple ethnicities, multiple race, come together to all kind of agree to leftist dogma.
It's not even about, you know, a different viewpoint because now what a college is is no longer a free marketplace of ideas.
It is only one rule set.
It's only one thing.
As you said, it's balkanization where all these competing groups are begging the state and in this case on campus is begging the administration To favor them and to destroy their enemies.
And that's why we see when Milo comes on campus, all these activists barge into their administrator's office and demand.
We can't have this person speak because that threatens our lives.
You know, they don't even use arguments.
They just say, oh, I'm going to die if Milo speaks.
He's apparently a wizard who can conjure up words to hurt people, apparently.
I mean, that's according to the mindset that they're pushing here.
So when they...
It is.
It is total.
It's not necessarily diversity because you're not really getting different backgrounds.
You're not getting even different viewpoints.
You're not getting that.
I mean, especially at Ivy League schools, it's predominantly upper and upper middle class people.
They don't have very many working class people from Appalachia coming to the Ivy League.
And even the minorities that go to the Ivy League schools typically come from a wealthy background.
So it's only a set number of people who are coming and they basically have similar backgrounds, similar viewpoints, and they come together and kind of have a big old group thing.
That says conservative viewpoints are not just wrong, they're dangerous, they're evil, they're demonic, or not just conservative, but anything right of center.
Really anything right of the New York Times editorial board is Nazism that must be destroyed and we cannot tolerate it on college campus.
And to me, it's the three C's, this sort of unholy trinity that goes on, and it's the conflict between communism, capitalism, and Christianity.
The traditional enemies of communism has always been Christianity, which acts as a bulwark against, traditionally, the encroaching power, increasing power of the state, and capitalism, of course, meritocracy, free trade, free markets, and so on.
So it seems to me, I mean, you've studied this more in depth, but it seems to me that...
What's happening is the communists have set up a system wherein white males are associated with capitalism and Christianity, and since they are what stands between the leftists and their thirst for virtually endless state power, they must be smashed and destroyed, and they don't have any good arguments against capitalism or Christianity, and therefore they must use the power of the state or the power of the protest to shut down conversations that might enlighten people as to the perspectives they claim they welcome.
Yeah, there's some of that, a little bit of that.
I mean, I think in general terms, in kind of our society, there is definitely, among the left, there is a deep animus towards Christianity and capitalism.
On campus, they don't necessarily use rhetoric that necessarily puts white people along with capitalism and Christianity.
Really, what they almost do, they attack capitalism and Christianity for being associated with white people more than that.
That's the worst thing about Christianity.
The worst thing is because it's a historical religion of Western civilization.
And Western civilization did so many terrible things.
Crusades, Christopher Columbus, all these wars, colonialism.
That's bad.
And then even with capitalism, you know, capitalism exploits the third world.
It, you know, turns everybody into slaves.
This is the kind of rhetoric, but it's almost kind of a reverse of that they don't hate necessarily white people because they're associated with capitalism and Christianity on a college campus level.
They hate those two things because they're associated with white people because there's just all this learning that the Susan Stone talk thing that white, the right race is the cancer of the human race.
And that's kind of this idea that has been seeped into these activist minds, and that's how they approach politics, is that generally whites are inherently guilty for the crimes of the past, and there's nothing they can do to overcome that.
They just have to keep atoning and atoning and atoning, and maybe someday they'll take away that guilt, but not anytime soon.
Well, I think that that demand for guilt will end when there aren't any white people left to extract the resources that the guilt hammer generally spits out.
And, um...
Why do you think it's erupted so much so recently?
Do you think it's sort of been bubbling under the surface for a while and there's particular things that have set it off?
Obviously, the Trump candidacy has set it off to a large degree, but it didn't seem sort of in the early to mid-2000s that it was such a big issue, but certainly post sort of 2014, 2015, it really seems to have geistered up to the very stratosphere these days.
Yeah, I think it's definitely been bubbling up.
There's been a few developments over the last 50 years that have really created this.
In the 80s and 90s, it began creating these gender studies and ethnic studies courses on college campus and ethnic groups and On college campus, they were reserved exclusively only for one identity group and not open to everybody else.
And these kind of groups have been, you know, growing and growing and growing and kind of seeping into the college culture for the last 30 years.
And thus, it's kind of been exploded now.
But I think what's kind of skyrocketed into a much quicker pace, you know, I only graduated college four years ago, and I didn't really see this.
I was never told to check my white privilege when I was in college.
I never witnessed a trigger warning, never even heard of microaggressions.
It really kind of maybe opened up my eyes when I was covering this as a reporter in the last four years.
But what's really kind of made it worse is, I think, developments in the rest of society.
We have President Obama.
When he was president, whenever there was a sensitive racial subject, he would wade in and usually come out on the side of protesters, whether it was Trayvon Martin or Ferguson.
And no matter what the facts of the case, whenever he gave statements, it implied that, you know, there's this deep sense of race.
There's this deep racism in America that just won't go away.
And we see this come up in the Trayvon Martin case or the Michael Brown shooting and other things.
So he'd always come in.
And at the same time, and along with that, there was the development of the Black Lives Matter movement, which arguably is the biggest protest movement in America in the last 10 or so years.
And so that, but when they, their primary activism now occurs on the campus.
So a large majority of African Americans on college campus are wildly static for the Black Lives Matter cause and movement, and And they usually adopt those kind of extreme rhetoric to go on a college campus.
So that's why we've seen a lot more extreme kind of these racial consequences erupt, such as at the University of Missouri, where they try to claim that there's this invisible racism permeating every aspect of the University of Missouri because somebody found a poop swastika in their dormant party bathroom.
You know, apparently that was an incident that the Ku Klux Klan is still active at the University of Missouri or something.
You know, this is kind of ridiculous.
But they use this type of, you know, One-off thing on a campus, and they use this to highlight that it's racism, and then they go to the administrators.
And another reason why the administration are really campuses are seeing more activity in this regard is because all the administrators and professors, all the authority figures on campus sympathize with their cause.
You know, this wasn't so much the case 50 years ago during the 60s.
A lot of administrators and professors were more conservative then and really pushed back against it.
They're like, you know, you hippies, that's kind of ridiculous what you're yelling about.
We're not going to cave into this.
And even 30 years ago with some of the political correctness then.
But now pretty much the entire administration professors are all on board with it.
And if they do disagree, they keep their mouth shut because they know what's going to happen to them if they disagree publicly.
I mean, there's also a lot of financial incentives in this as well, right?
As student loans have massively increased, what is like a trillion dollar student loan liability floating around the US economy right now.
And as student enrollment has gone up, of course, the cost of tuition has gone up enormously.
What that has done is generally created a fiefdom of massive over-bureaucratization, right?
So you've got all of these administrators all floating around, dependent on money.
A lot of what is guaranteed by the Fed or directly paid by the federal government.
And so the federal government gets to set the rules and set the tone.
So there is ideological affinity, but I always wonder whether it's just, you know, follow the money and see who's paying for this massive glut of administrators floating around running diversity courses and And championing the underprivileged.
No, that's a great point because the reason why school costs are skyrocketing is we're hiring multicultural administrators and LGBT affairs officers and all these people who are their only purpose is to encourage identity politics and victimization on a college campus and their whole job is to make sure campuses keep getting crazier and crazier.
That's why student loans are skyrocketing.
But if those money keep going to schools, they can just keep creating whatever office they want.
So that is very true.
With all this money coming in through loans, they've been creating all these ridiculous, unnecessary offices and We're good to go.
Let schools keep building this.
And a lot of state lawmakers aren't aware that, you know, when they approve diversity funding, it's going to be this ridiculous stuff.
And when they investigate, they realize that maybe they should cut it off.
I think just last year, the state of Tennessee decided to cut off for all public universities diversity funding because they realized it was going to basically left this agitation on a college campus.
Let's talk about some of the nuts and bolts of the admissions process because I don't think people are aware of just how slanted it is.
So I'll just give you two stats that are in the book and you can tell sort of a little more about it and also how on earth we got there.
Most schools and states where racial preferences are allowed give blacks a more than 5 to 1 advantage over whites in the admissions process.
At the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, another study found black applicants scoring in the second highest academic index category were accepted at a 100% rate for the year 2006.
Whites and Asians in that same category registered only a 42% and 43% acceptance rate.
This isn't a little tilt.
I mean, a 5 to 1 advantage is ludicrous.
And I think people need to really understand how skewed the system is when it comes to admissions.
Oh, absolutely.
And the fact that these students are getting in not on the basis of their merit or hard work or their achievements, but solely on their skin color creates a dangerous precedent for the rest of the society.
We're basically, we're kind of inverting what the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s says, where, you know, we're just going to judge you on the content of your character.
No, we're reverting back to, no, we're going to judge you on the color of your skin, because if you're a white person scoring the same level as an African American, the African American is superior to you, We're good to go.
Over discriminatory practices towards Asian Americans because they're scoring so high, but they are alleging that these schools have a kind of Asian racial quota where they cap out the number of Asians because the Asian population in America has grown significantly, but when you compare with Ivy League admissions, you know, it's stayed roughly around 20% for the last, you know, 30 years or so, while the Asian population has increased dramatically.
And at schools in California that don't have this kind of Strict emissions, racial preference process that Ivy League's do, their numbers are nearly almost 50%.
So it's not just whites who are getting discriminated in this process.
In a lot of cases, it's now Asian Americans who are almost getting discriminated against more because they're scoring much higher than any other group, yet their rate of acceptance is kind of decreasing.
There's this cause and effect reversal, I think, that has gone on.
Let me know what you think about this, Scott.
There's this idea, well, you see, people in college are smart and they make more money and they achieve reasonable amounts of prestige within society.
Now, we have groups that are historically or even currently doing relatively badly.
So if we put them in college, they will gain these attributes.
Now, to me, if you're smart, and a lot of intelligence is genetic, right?
So if you're smart, then you get to go to college.
But putting people in college doesn't necessarily make them smart.
You know, the analogy would be if you've got a short person and you say, well, you know, everyone on the basketball team is tall, so let's put the short person in the basketball team and they'll magically get taller.
Facts seem to push back a little bit against this narrative, and I think it is a huge disservice.
To any group, to put them in situations where their qualifications don't match the requirements because it sets them up for failure and resentment and frustration.
And I think even more importantly, it dilutes the value of degrees from whichever group where the people who are getting those degrees are just as able as everyone else and then the employer or the hirer after the fact doesn't know.
If, say, the black person or the Hispanic person or whatever, they don't know if that person is genuinely as skilled as everyone else and, you know, flew through on the merits of their genius or whatever, or whether they were just kind of stuffed in there to meet numbers.
And it makes, I think, the pursuit of higher education for the really talented in every group become less valuable.
Yeah, and there's a theory for this that necessarily they're giving students the nest wouldn't have been allowed into school because I think?
So they kind of build them up into this other school, and they, you know, they see their grades are falling, they're not academically succeeding, they're kind of miserable, and that also kind of turns a lot of these students into more activism.
If they think that they're, if they see that they're failing and struggling in school, even though they got into the school, and when there's ideas, You know, spreading all over campus that, you know, it's not your fault.
It's the systemic racism for why you're failing in your classes.
These students are going to believe that and they're going to use that to agitate.
And a lot of the demands given by these racial activists on campus are about how they need special counseling reserved exclusively for minority students.
And not only that, but schools should not expel students Who are minorities, who are having grades below the mandated standard for college campus, they shouldn't be expelled.
So basically, they're creating special status to make sure that these students don't fail, even if their work level results in that.
But that's a result of this mismatch theory that they're putting in.
A lot of these students are not qualified to go to these great schools, and they're brought in just simply for the skin color.
And instead of actually making them more likely to succeed in society, it's turning them into extreme racial activists who have these grievances towards the college, not because it let them in when they shouldn't have had and they could have succeeded in a different school that matched their qualities, Instead, they're failing and they're blaming the school, they're blaming white supremacy, they're blaming all of America for why they're failing and they turn into extreme racial activists just because they were allowed into a school that they wouldn't have otherwise been led into based on their skin color.
And debt, right?
They end up with significant amounts of debt, and if they've been turned against the society they live in, it's going to be kind of tough for them to get a decent job to help pay off that debt, which again creates this invitation in these sort of well-funded radical groups for them to try and find a home there.
Now, let's turn to diversity as one of these...
You call it the cult of diversity.
But in society, it's just become one of these things.
You're questioning diversity or the value of diversity.
It's like questioning gravity or trying to go back to the Earth-centered model of the solar system.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
How could you possibly...
What, do you want to bring back slavery?
But it is one of these things where...
If you allow yourself to ask the question, okay, so let's take this fundamental value in society called diversity that everyone says is a strength and everyone says is wonderful, let's go and find the data that supports it.
Wow.
That was quite a rabbit hole for me some years ago when I came across Putnam and others.
I wonder if you could help people understand the claims that are made and the data that seems to belie those claims.
Well, the claims that are made is that when you have a set number of racial ethnic diversity, that everyone is magically made smarter and better people simply by having this quality.
And the way they worship it is like how a primitive tribe worship some idol.
It's like, you know, if we all pray to diversity enough, we're all going to be magically smarter and better people, run faster, be better looking, whatever.
That's how they kind of treat it.
It's almost like a magical idol in the way they worship it.
That's why I call it the cult of diversity.
But actually, the studies you mentioned, you just alluded to Robert Putnam, when he actually looked at communities in America and see what worked and what didn't work, he found that the chief contributing cause to a lot of social alienation and social dysfunction was a community with a high level of diversity.
He found that people were less likely to be civically engaged.
They spend most of their time watching TV and being alienated from their neighbors.
There's more misery, more depression, more addiction.
Basically, society collapsed.
Sorry to interrupt, but that's also within particular groups.
So it's not just that, say, whites wouldn't trust Asians, but even the Asians within their own group wouldn't trust each other.
Even the whites within their own group, the blacks with the Hispanics within their own groups.
So it wasn't just like we became these sort of pillars.
What happened is everything fractured, even within particular groups.
Yeah, that's right.
It's not just groups competing with each other.
It's also group dysfunction happens as well.
So basically, there's all this alienation dysfunction that happens with diversity, and people don't trust each other.
Social trust is almost eliminated, nearly eliminated when you have a high level of diversity.
Now, Putnam is a good old liberal and did not want to even publish this data.
And he sat on it, I believe, for five or six years.
And then when he released it, he made sure he put a conclusion that said, well, you know, this might be problems now, but eventually diversity will overcome.
So even the culture of diversity among the people who have seen that it's actually not a beneficial attribute to half-for society that leads to all this alienation to function, they'll still believe it because like, well, we'll eventually work it out.
Even though I didn't really offer any evidence or argument for it, you just have this hope, this, you know, almost mere faith that, you know, diversity will work itself out.
You know, in the same way that communism leads to a stateless, classless utopia.
It's like that old cartoon where the guy's got a whole bunch of equations and in the middle there's a cloud which says, here, a miracle occurs.
And the guy who's reviewing it says, I'd like you to speak a little bit more about this part, if you don't mind.
And yeah, he did.
I mean, kudos on him for publishing the data, but he put so many brackets around it of caveats and nonsensical things and hopes and fingers and unicorns delivering a wonderful future that I'm not sure it did a huge amount to clear up the issue.
I get a lot of questions, Scott, as I'm sure you do as well, from people saying, I can't decide whether to go to college or not.
And it is something that's drilled into your head.
Brush your teeth, get sleep, eat your fruits and veggies, and go to college!
Because if you don't go to college, you'll end up living in a van down by the river on a steady diet of government.
Jeez.
What is the case?
And my position has been, look, if you need some piece of paper to do what you want to do, like be an engineer or a doctor or whatever, then yeah, you know, go to college.
You've got to jump through the hoops to get what you want in life.
But to me, it's like, well, you know, if it's just some arts degree or something, I don't know, it's pretty risky stepping into these landmines where you're going to be set at odds against yourself, particularly if you are a white male.
But I would also argue if you're in a minority position, Then going into these kinds of environments has a significant risk for your future if you end up being radicalized or if you end up being sort of sucked into some of this identity politics stuff where you get to substitute skin color for having a soul.
I think it's really risky as a whole.
And I'm sort of...
Real close, if not there, to just saying, ah, you got this stuff for free on the internet, you've got, you know, great conversations you can have, lectures are free all over the place.
Why would you want to go and pay for a piece of paper that, I'm going to make the case surely, can be viewed as more of a negative than a positive these days?
Yeah, and I see, I think more and more young people are questioning that.
I think with...
As you mentioned, you know, there's certain professions that you actually have to have.
If you're an engineer, you're, you know, certain fields, you actually have to have that degree.
You know, you can't just, you know, be like an engineer and just graduate high school and go on to that profession.
You actually have to go through colleges.
And I reference a little bit of this in No Campus for White Men.
It's like, When the amount of student loan debt, the average student loan debt is about $35,000.
When the average starting salary coming out of school for, and this is a high number, this is considered a high estimate, is $35,000.
When your first salary is equal to the amount of student loan debt, and loan debt is very difficult to get rid of.
I mean, you have to question whether it's worth it because you could equally, you know, with the amount of skills and options available now in our society with technology and the internet and other things, you can educate yourself in ways that you couldn't in the past, that you can only get into college.
And if you're only going to spend four years there learning about how bad you are for being white and, you know, how there's 30 genders and how there's all this nonsense and you come out with 50K in student loan debt and you are ending up being a barista at Starbucks, there's not much benefit to college.
And almost there needs to be this kind of withdrawal from college because the reason why these colleges keep getting rid of this ridiculousness is this idea that everyone has to go to college.
If you don't go to college, there's something wrong with you and you're never going to get a job.
And as you said, you're going to be living in a van down by the river eating government cheese.
So that's why you need to go.
And this is why the money train keeps coming to colleges.
They keep getting state funding.
They keep getting loans.
And it's because everyone has this idea that everyone has to go to college.
And if you don't, there's something wrong with you.
But there needs to be that pushback.
There needs to be that kind of people withdrawing and their other options so schools will correct themselves.
Yeah, and before I did what I do now, I was...
I'm an executive in the IT world and an entrepreneur, and I interviewed, I don't know, probably thousands of people, hired hundreds of people and so on.
And I got to tell you right now, if I saw a resume coming across my desk with some generic...
I'd be like, hmm, I don't know.
That is not a plus for me anymore.
Whereas if I had a resume come across my desk from someone who said, well, you know, I looked at college.
I did a cost-benefit analysis.
I looked at the data.
It was not good for me because it's not just the student debt.
It's the deferred income that people forget about as well.
You know, I have a friend who's a college professor who was once saying to his students, he says, you know, I have my office hours, you know, a couple of times a week and you guys never come by and I don't understand it because you're foregoing, you know, 20, 30, 40k a year in income just to be here, let alone your student desk.
He did the math and it was like a couple hundred thousand dollars for a four-year degree if you count the money you're not earning.
By being in college as well as the expense of going, you know, it's the most expensive decision you're going to make outside perhaps of buying a house.
And if I got a resume from someone who said, oh, you kidding me?
Go to college?
End up in debt for being indoctrinated into left-wing dogma?
I'd be like, of those two people, I would much more want to talk to the guy or the man or the woman who'd made the decision to not go to college after a rational analysis rather than someone who said, oh, yes, I got a degree in professional resentment from, you know, leftist indoctrination camp 107.
Yeah, I think it is.
It makes people more interesting if they don't have a college degree, yet they have a lot of success to the resume.
It makes more experience.
It shows that they have possibly more critical thinking, that they're more independent, that they're a self-starter and all that, while a college campus, it shows more that you're engaging in this group thing.
I think But what comes to college campuses itself and kind of correcting course, I mean, it's still because there's so many professions that absolutely they have to have the education that comes with a college degree that we can't just all drop out from it, that there has to be some pushback.
I think that really, and I outlined this in No Campus for White Men, is that the real thing that has to come from is our elected officials in North America who We're going to start cutting off funding if you keep funding these diversity programs that teaches that white people are evil.
We're going to cut off funding if you're Funding all this silly nonsense that teaches students nothing, and they come out with 50K in student loan debt.
So there has to be some, there has to be major pushback from our elected officials against these administrators, because administrators usually are spineless creatures that are just there to have a two-hour lunch break, and they don't really do anything except coddle students all day.
And the reason why they coddle them is because there's so much pressure.
The only pressure they have to feel is from campus electives.
That's the only pressure group they have.
You know, conservatives on campus aren't going to barge in their room and start having a cry in their Over a liberal speaker appearing on campus, the campus left are.
And they capitulate to the loudest pressure group on campus.
But lawmakers are a much more powerful pressure group because they control the purse strings.
And if they started going after schools, I think we'd see a marked improvement in this.
I think there would be a lot less radical activism because administrators would stop capitulating to these agitators and stop coddling them.
And we would finally get back to learning, to teaching students valuable skills, and it would even probably result in costs going down, because if we eliminated administrative float, you know, we could free up more money so people would not come out with 35K in student loan debt.
You know, that number would go down significantly for the average student loan debt if they didn't have to worry about paying for a multicultural center.
Well, and I'm concerned.
Sorry, that's kind of a social justice word.
I'm a concern troll.
But I'm sort of concerned about the possibility that this is actually increasing racism and racial division within society.
Because let's say that you're some Asian young man, young woman, you go to college.
And you see a significant proportion of blacks in your courses who are underperforming, who are not doing well, and is that not going to give you some sense that, wow, you know, gosh, you know, maybe they just as a whole can't handle the curriculum and so on because a lot of people have been let in who don't have the intellectual abilities perhaps to complete the curriculum to the satisfaction of, you know, reasonable objective standards.
So it's my sort of concern, like if every black who's in the course is doing really well and, you know, contributing to the college, fantastic, you know, great.
But if you're letting a lot of people in who can't do it, then I'm concerned that that view, the view of that inability is going to transmit itself and end up with people saying, well, you know, I remember in my college days, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I think it's going to work, like most government programs end up achieving the opposite of what they claim they want.
And I'm concerned in this area that's going to happen as well.
No, there is a greater chance for group conflict.
And I think what almost is the possibility is that in society in general, that there's going to be tribe against tribe, a war against all, rather than anyone coming together to, you know, keep alive a stable nation state.
Because if all they're learning is that all they should be worried about is their own specific group of interests, then they don't have to worry about anybody else.
And that also comes with your point.
It's not just that minority students who are gaining all the benefits are becoming more It's racist in many ways.
It's also the students who are kind of not getting the benefits as Asian-Americans and white males who are going to college campus and they see this ridiculousness going on and it's being encouraged by the administrators that they themselves might begin feeling more loathing for their fellow countrymen and all that.
So really, I mean, this is not a stable social model that's being created on college campus.
Of pitting tribes against tribes and basically saying, we're going to have this big old country, big old multicultural pluralistic country that's pitting tribe against tribe.
You know, that's never worked in world history.
You can look at Austria-Hungary, where basically the nationalities were pitting against each other, and somehow the Habsburg dynasty was only allowed to stay alive by pitting tribes.
You know, tactically pitting one nationality against each other.
If we have that in the United States, we're not going to have a real democracy.
And that was not a democracy at all.
You can't have a stable democracy with this kind of tribal warfare that's promoted on college campus.
And these people who are coming out who are the demonstrators and the most loudest activists aren't just some extreme fringe.
These could be very well the leaders of tomorrow.
These could be senators, congressmen, judges, And possibly even attorney, you know, attorney general like Eric Holder, who himself in the 1960s was a protest leader, and then he ended up to be the U.S. Attorney General.
Look how that worked out.
Imagine somebody who's now shouting down about how Yale University is full of systemic racism.
Ending up being the U.S. Attorney General 30 years from now.
That's a scary thought, but that's what we're dealing with if we keep allowing this coddling to go on.
And it's not going to lead to any more harmony or unity, which they always say diversity is our strength.
We're just going to become a better country with diversity and we're just going to love each other more with diversity.
No, it leads to more hatred and animosity and distrust between people who are supposed to live in a country and get along well enough together to have a stable democracy.
Instead, it creates more instability, more potential for conflict.
And it's ultimately a grim future in the works for North America, unless this campus insanity is stopped.
People of differing viewpoints, as we know from history, can live together as long as the state doesn't involve itself in mediating between those viewpoints.
You can have a multi-religious society as long as there's a separation of church and state.
The moment that the state starts to mediate in the affairs of religion, every religious group wants to use the power of the state to survive and flourish and grow and avoid being put down by some other group that gets hold of that power of the state.
You can have a multi-ethnic society as long as the separation of state and ethnicity is as complete as the separation of church and state.
But that, of course, hasn't been happening.
And in American history, the great tragedy is it's never really happened.
You know, first of all, the state was putting down minorities, in particular blacks.
You had internment camps.
You had Chinese Exclusion Acts.
You had, of course, slavery, segregation, Jim Crow.
And now it's like, can we not just end up with the pendulum in the middle here somewhere?
Now it's got to swing to the other side.
And now the government is continuing to involve itself in racial politics and division and conflict and all that.
Like, can we just get the government out of the business of mediating between ethnicities?
And I think we'll find it a lot easier for everyone to get along.
So, Scott, let me give you the last sort of speech because there are so many young people who are facing what used to be a relatively simple decision.
Like, if you can get in and if you can afford it and, you know, it's usually a good idea to go.
I'm not sure that's really the case anymore.
What should young people listening to or watching this, what should they think about when it comes to making the decision to go or not to go?
And let's just keep it confined to sort of the arts degrees because, again, if you want to be a doctor, you've got to jump through those hoops.
What...
What process do you think they should go through in trying to make the decision?
Well, first, do very, very extensive research.
Look at the schools that are going to be cheap, cost affordable, and you can potentially get a scholarship in.
You know, it doesn't matter.
It almost doesn't matter with the elite.
I mean, certainly with Ivy Leagues now actually allow you to graduate without too much debt.
So some of those elite schools are trying to move to a model where students don't graduate with debt because it's a very bad business model for them.
So they want to keep that prestigiousness alive, but they know if kids are graduating with 200k of debt, it hurts them.
So if you can somehow get into those schools, It might be a smart idea, but then again you have to worry about more extremism.
But that's where you have to come in and look at schools that respect free speech and respect your right to have a different point of view from the leftist dogma.
And there's some great resources online for this.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, has a tremendous guide that outlines every school in America It gives them a green light rating on whether they respect free speech or not.
They have a green light, they respect free speech.
Yellow, they have some issues.
Red light, do not go there.
They do not respect free speech at all.
They're speech suppressors.
So you have to do that research.
Basically, make sure that you're going to come out of school with a decent degree, that you basically were not told the whole time that you should feel bad for feeling white.
Make sure you go to a school that respects your right to free speech and to have a dissenting point of view.
And almost in some ways, try to get a scholarship.
Try to go somewhere.
It doesn't matter if you're going to go to a lesser school.
If you come out, you're going to appreciate it more if you're coming out of a school with 10K in student loan debt or no student loan debt than coming out of a slightly better school with 100K in student loan debt.
I mean, because that's going to take you a whole lifetime to pay off.
Right.
I would love it if they would just allow employers to run a simple IQ test on applicants because, to me, when that was basically disallowed or at least disincentivized, what happened is you had to have a giant multi-hundred-thousand-dollar IQ test called college because people couldn't give you a one-hour IQ test to come into the organization.
So I would really like it if we could just get back to just give people an intelligence test.
Smart people will do well in just about any environment, and that would be for the best.
So thanks so much for your time.
A great, great book.
Remember, everyone, this is the name, No Campus for White Men, The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination.
Scott alone can save you.
This video alone, this audio alone can save you a couple of hundred thousand dollars where you'll end up sitting in a room paying for the privilege of being told you're a bad person and spending four years biting your tongue and having nightmares about where you've ended up.
Oh, Kafka with racial divisiveness could be your future, but you can avoid it.
If you read this book, you can follow Scott, twitter.com forward slash Scott M. Greer.
Thanks so much for your time.
Thanks so much for the book and have yourself a great day.
