What has happened to American universities?

Given that most of you know who I am and the kinds of positions I support, I wonder if any of you would take the time to listen to this video.

I think there is a LOT that people on the right will agree with, but at the same time, I’m curious if any of you (that take the time to watch it) can be introspective?

Do you see any flaws in the ideology you support?

I’ll say upfront I do. While I lean left I think the professor (who leans left) points out the flaws in today’s radically left shifting landscape on college campuses.

I think any of you that take the time to watch it will agree with most of it, but that if you’re being honest, the right suffers many of the same problems.

I hope at least a few of you take the time to watch at least the first 20 min.


Just to wet your appetite a little, here is the professor explaining that victim culture and safety culture hurt the very people they are designed to help.

Ironically, the thought that adversity and challenges build character, does not apply to those in “safe spaces”, the beneficiaries are straight, white, men.

The professor argues that by making being straight, white and male a group that receives no special “help” and isn’t recognized as an oppressed group, they, ironically, are better prepared for the hardships of world in ways that victim culture does not prepare them for.

Now, before some of you get too up in arms and assign this characteristic to the majority of people in US universities, I’d argue this isn’t the case. The majority of people don’t think this is a good idea, but there is a sizable and extremely passionate number of people that feel this way and it is undoubtedly bad for American academics.

Yes, I find it curious that you posted this. Here a left-leaning professor actually finds problems with the left.

Of course I disagree with some things. First he confesses the ratio of liberal to conservative professors has increased from 2:1 or 4:1 in the '90s to 5:1 or 14:1 or even 17:1 in the '10s. But then he says this at 19:03:

Very few people understand this.  Very few people in this country know just
how radically the professoriate has changed in the last 20 years.  And what
this means is that you undergrads here are exposed to less political diversity
than ever before in the history of our country ...

Very few people? He must mean very few leftist people. I constantly hear how universities have become a bastion of leftist indoctrination. Every conservative laments it. Though it’s a very positive sign that a self proclaimed left-leaning professor agrees that it’s a problem.

Toward the end he talks about “trying to restore diversity of opinion.” That’s very good. Many conservatives have tried to speak on a campus in recent years only to cause a riot for saying the most straightforward reasonable stuff. Or they were prevented from speaking at all out of fear of what they might say.

Though at 1:03:41 he went totally off the rails talking about how the mission of colleges have changed since their founding:

They were all Christian schools originally.  Some went to Christ.  
Some went toward truth.

So serving the Lord, in his view, is distinct from teaching truth. Big BIG fail.

His bias also showed through at 23:22:

Humanity's great trick, our evolutionary trick over the last million or so 
years ... is we evolved a psychology of sacredness.  We evolved to be
religious.  And that means if we circle around something, we then make
that thing sacred and then we can trust each other.

Clearly he thinks there is no Lord God creator. He thinks man evolved. And that we evolved a psyche that needs to be religious. It couldn’t be that the Lord God created us with a “god shaped vacuum in our hearts”, as someone put it. No, it’s got to be that the concept of a god evolved.

That need to worship the Lord God that’s in all of us gets misdirected and perverted in many ways. That’s what he observes. And yes it often causes big problems.

But, yes it was very refreshing to hear him address the victim-hood culture, safety culture and what amounts to intolerance for blasphemy.


One thing that I’ve heard pointed out that evolution doesn’t explain an origin; it’s just a theory for the process. I’d like to hear this guy (and a whole lot of others) explain where time, matter, energy, and chance came from…

1 Like

Bolded: That’s correct.

Abiogenesis is the science of explaining how life might have begun.

As far as evolution…

The answer is, we don’t know where space and time came from. There are theories grounded almost entirely in math that offer some plausible explanations based on how the universe works today (those evidence for these ideas is based on things like the cosmic background radiation and math), but it’s possible that the rules that governed the beginning of the universe may not govern the current universe. Is it possible that it could have been a “god”? Sure that’s possible, but there is ZERO evidence that is the case.

But why, in your opinion is it necessary to explain those things to create an explanation of how, once life arose, how it changed over time?

We don’t have to know where gravity came from to explain plausible theories of how the solar system began. We don’t have to understand how the universe began, to explain how living creatures evolve.

I don’t think it’s a question of “need” because that presupposes a “desire”. Adaption, physical or physiological are responses to environment and as such happen as a result of a creatures capacity to adapt.

I really appropriate you taking a look at this and offering your thoughts. Not everyone on the left supports “safe spaces” and other extreme leftist ideas.

Thanks Ken.

Nonsense! NO “scientist” “knows how the universe works today.” If they tell you different, they are lying.

How it works? I’d say that science has certainly figured some of it out, but no, not all. Probably only scratching the surface, but not a year goes by that we don’t learn more.

The first wave of snakes came when St. Joe (McCarthy) drove them out of Washington. The second wave of rats came when the Yippie/SDS/Panther revolution perished; they’ve been breeding ever since.

1 Like

We don’t know 1/10th of 1% of how the universe works. Anyone who says different is lying through his/her teeth. Not only that, but they are exercising ENORMOUS hubris.

Like I said, we’ve begun to scratch the surface and we learn more all the time.

Saying that is proof that you can say anything. “ZERO evidence” of God?

The belief that life came to be by natural processes is totally unsupported by any cogent theory. It’s a cherished dream used to hide from the reality that life could have only arisen by being well designed and created.

The belief that a microbe evolved to man is a bad theory that modern science has shown to be impossible. People only still cling to it to hide from the reality that life was designed and created. Errors (mutations) don’t accumulate to form the complex, hierarchical, interdependent systems observed in life. Life was designed.

Most phyla on earth today have been found in the so-called Cambrian era fossils, but with no ancestors. Poof! All those animals appeared well designed and fully formed. But you say there’s zero evidence of God?

If there is no God, the big bang violates causality. Nothing can cause itself.


The so-called “big bang” could simply have been an eternal universe changing from one state to another via processes that cannot be explained by the rules of nature as we know them.

Even if god was the cause, you have the problem of infinite regression. What caused god to exist?

From there you are left with the fallacy of special pleading. That everything needs a cause to exist #except# a god.

But even if it was true that a god did create the universe (and to be crystal clear, I don’t claim to know that a god didn’t create the universe, only that I’ve seen no evidence that would convince me that was the case), you’re still a billion miles away from connecting that god to the god that you claim exists. God could be your god or any of the thousands of variations of the Christin like god, or perhaps god could be as the Muslims, or Hindus version of god, or any one of thousands of other gods named thought history, or maybe, it was god and no one has discovered gods origin.

As far as you’re other claims, I deny most of them, but I see little point in arguing them. Believe it or not, I fully respect your right to believe in a god. And I’ve said before, humanity is probably, on the whole slightly better off in believing in gods than a world where no one ever believed in a god. All I ask is that you respect my right to reject your belief and hold beliefs of my own, even if they run contrary to yours.


Because of lineage science.

Again, pattern marks of genetic errors; very particular arrangements of non-functional mutations that we “happen” to share with other primates? The odds are not in favor of that being a coincidence. It’s how we read human lineage to begin with; it’s the same science, doing the same thing.

In psychology; Mental profiles of animals adjusting over generations is better studied than their genetics.

Evolution plays a clear role here, and it’s a large part to how we know what the left is spinning about Gender or the difference between Men and Women just being a Social construction is bunk.

It’s why the Left is attacking evolutionary psychologists like Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein.

Peterson is better read than Haidt on the Animal tests. He does not reject God, but he does indeed affirm the role evolution plays in shaping animal behavior over time.

If you Ken accept “micro evolution”, I don’t see you denying this. It’s basically saying changes in the environment pushes animals to adopt new survival strategies.

And he’s getting things right because of what he premises. His framework, works, for laying bear our functional parts.

We know how lineage science works.

You can only decry Evolution, if you say the same of DNA tests. It’s the same science, doing the same thing.

Looking for matching patterns of genetic errors in the nitrogenous bases (A, G, C, T). How far back those errors go, tells you how far back you’re related. And just like with DNA tests, chances are not in favor of a coincidence.

BS. All it says is that the creator used the SAME MATERIALS to make all life, just in different combinations for each species.

1 Obviously, I dispute “zero.” I believe I’ve presented plenty of evidence, some of it compelling, even if you chose not to believe that it’s conclusive.

2 Part of that relates to my argument: There is no scientifically demonstrable precedent for anything even being eternal; that itself defies known science at a fundamental level. I submit that only leaves supernature, since natural laws haven’t even been (to the best of my knowledge) theorized which can adequately this quandry.
3 The supernature of God transcends the need for Him to have been caused. He always was, is, and always will be, and needs no natural explanation.

That’s further proof that a person can say anything.

Your problem of infinite regression could be seen as a proof of God’s eternal nature. If there was ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever exist. (Whether time existed before the universe or not.)

Would we have to employ the fallacy of special pleading if we claimed there was only one federal government in America? Or that there is only one planet that humans inhabit? Or that only one element exists that has only one proton in its nucleus?

Agreed, but there is just as much evidence that the universe has existed forever as there is evidence that god created it.

The thing is, you would look at science and say that because science cannot explain it, that it must therefore be god.

I’m simply saying that I don’t know and neither do you.

Eternal nature? That is a property superimposed on god as a way to provide an explanation. It’s no better than if I claim to know that the universe has an “eternal nature”.

If you can say god has an eternal nature, you can, as you say, say anything.

I mean, what is the difference? God has an “eternal nature” only by definition because a god without an eternal nature isn’t a god, or at least, not a god that can explain all that you need to explain.

But you cannot demonstrate the eternal nature of god, can you?

It’s incredible hubris to claim that anyone knows what a god wants. Everything that humans imposed on god is based on their experience of life. That’s it. God’s properties are just a reflection of human experience.

That said, I don’t claim to know that the universe has an eternal nature, I offered it up just a plausible possible alternative to the equally ridiculous idea that the universe “began to exist”.

Both infinitely eternal universe and one with a beginning are, from the point-of-view we share, ridiculous ideas.

That said, science has some evidence for the idea that time is a human perception and may not be a fundamental aspect of the universe. That is, time is an emergent property rather than a fundamental one. Thus saying that the universe has existed for all time, might be a non-sequitur.

First, let’s be clear…

When I say special pleading using its common usage I mean:

Special pleading involves a person applying rules and standards to others while exempting him- or herself (or in this case the argument you’ve put forward, or would have put forward if given the opportunity).

Which is what you’d have to do if you said that a universe cannot exist infinitely, but a god can.

So your questions make no sense in the context of the fallacy I pointed out as I’m not claiming any of those things can or cannot exist except in one instance that lends evidence to the point I want to make.

Thus, if you want to say that infinity applies only to gods, you have to do better than define god that way. Definitions don’t make things true.