Higher Education Has a Professor Problem-What Impact Are Professors Having On Our Culture?  David Barton at the Pro-Family Legislators Conference Pt 4: One of the hottest topics right now is on what is happening on our university campuses. The indoctrination of multiple generations now at this point and the negative impact it’s had on the culture.  Will liberals admit to openly discriminating against conservatives? David Barton tackled this very issue at the Pro-family Legislators Conference giving legislators a wake-up call on what’s happening in their own backyards with their universities, but then also giving solutions on how we can turn this thing around. We’re in part four of a five-part series on this where David shared with those legislators.  Join us as we learn more about the discrimination that is taking place, how the age of adolescence is being extended, discover new vocabulary words that we didn”€™t even use ten years ago, learn about bias response teams, learn how our legal codes go back to the Bible, and more!

Air Date: 12/29/2017

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast.  However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and culture. This is WallBuilders Live where we talk about today’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. Always from a Biblical, historical, and Constitutional perspective. One of those hot topics is what’s happening on our university campuses. The indoctrination of multiple generations now at this point and the negative impact it’s had on the culture.

David Barton tackled this very issue at the Pro-Family Legislators Conference. Giving legislators a wake-up call on what’s happening in their own backyards with their universities, but then also giving solutions on how we can turn this thing around. So we’re in part four of a five-part series on this where David shared with those legislators. And so today’s part 4 and then Monday we’ll get the conclusion. We’re going to pick up where we left off yesterday.

We’re in the studio right now with David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. And also, Tim Barton, national speaker, pastor, and the president of WallBuilders. And my name’s Rick Green, I’m a former Texas legislator.

Be sure and visit our websites today – especially if you’re just tuning in and you missed those first three parts on this series. It’s all available right now at WallBuildersLive.com – click on that archives section and you can listen to those first few parts and you can share it with your friends and family.

We”€™re Leaving Them in Their Youth

Rick:

David, Tim, this is a very important series that we’re covering. We’re kind of coming into the tail end now. Some of the stories, today, that David’s going to share, I think are going to surprise people a lot. And you even start with this whole age of adolescence and how people just aren”€™t growing up anymore. We’re leaving them in youth well into their 30″€™s.

David:

Yeah, we are, but that”€™s, again, the result of what’s in the classroom. And if you look back at what we’ve covered the last three days, I mean, look at the kind of majors that we have now. Look at the kind of courses we have. Look at the money we’re putting into those kinds of courses. As a matter of fact, Tim, you just came up with a new list of some of the new courses that are out for this year.

Tim:

Yeah, there was a new article, I don’t know if it was Fox News or somebody that had out with it, but it was some of the courses being taught. There’s a course on hooking up. So, how to meet and sexually hook up with people.

David:

How many, I guess how many wanted ads have we seen for businesses wanting someone who knows how to hook other people up sexually?

Tim:

Yeah, well you know, I really need an employee who”€™s going to come hook up with another employee–

David:

That”€™s right. Yeah.

These Are College Courses Now

Tim:

–that”€™s what I”€™m looking for in life and my job. Well, there’s one on queer religion, there’s one on sexy vampires, there’s one on tacos–

David:

These are all college courses now.

Tim:

There is one on country music’s homophobic and racist messages. Yeah, it goes on, racial capitalism, but these are courses being offered at universities.

David:

And so this is the kind of stuff that’s being taught and that’s why we get the results that we get. That’s what we’re going to look at today is, how is it that universities get away with teaching this kind of stuff? We spend good money to send kids there and these are the courses they’re getting? No wonder three out of four come out of college unable to get a job in their career field because this is the kind of stuff that is now starting to dominate. Now, not every college teaches this, but the overwhelming majority have this kind of philosophy and that really is what’s significant.

Rick:

Stay with us, folks. We’re going to take a quick break. When we come back from the break, we’ll be back with David at the Pro-Family Legislators Conference picking up on that presentation there. And then David, Tim, and I will be back with you later in the program. Stay with us, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Avalon Project

Tim:

Hey, guys, this is Tim Barton with WallBuilders. I know you hear my dad and Rick talk a lot about our Founding Fathers about the original intent of our nation, a Constitutional heritage that we have. And really we’ve seen how far we slipped away from that. And I know a lot of us as we hear my dad and Rick talk think, “€œI wish there was a place that I could go where I could see these documents and I could read and learn about the Founding Fathers firsthand.  See the things they did.”€  

I want to give you some websites today that can help you accomplish that very thing. If you get online you can go to places like Library of Congress and you can look under their century of lawmaking or historical documents. You can go to the Avalon Project, to the Founders Constitution, Google Books, or even the internet archives.  

Or you can just go to WallBuilders.com. We have a section for our WallBuilders Library. And under that section, we have different subgroups for historical documents, historical writings, even a place where you can get helpful links to find out more information about other websites.  Where you can do research for yourself and find the truth for yourself. Friends, this is the time that we need to know who we are and where we came from. WallBuilders.com is a great place to go.

A Whole Lexicon of New Words at Colleges

David:

We now have a whole lexicon of new words that we use at colleges. You”€™re aware of these words like “€œtrigger warnings”€ – we never knew what that was until ten years ago. We didn’t know what safe spaces were, we didn’t know what micro aggressions were, we didn’t even know what a snowflake was. And again, I’ve already said there’s a lot of good kids out there. You know, we talked even about the ones that we get in the summer – good stuff.

But this is the trend that’s going. As a result, we all know what adolescence is. You know, adolescence/teen, we”€™ve got youth groups at church, we’ve got teens, and so, adolescence. No, no, no – no, they have redefined adolescence. They now call it the age of extended or the age of prolonged adolescence.

Official statistics now say that adolescence lasts somewhere between your 30s and your 40s. So, our education is keeping us from becoming mature until we’re between 30– That is official studies now put the age of adolescence extending up to 40 years old – somewhere around 30-35 years old up to 40 years old. So, that doesn’t help citizenship either. Alright, so back to other things at hand – other results have educational philosophy, the free speech codes, you also have biased response teams.

Bias Response Teams

David:

Now I want to focus on biased response teams for a little bit. Biased response teams, they tell you to report a bias. And in other words, if you have a microaggression, or somebody uses the word “€œmankind,”€ report them to us here at the university. If somebody says that marriage is between a man and woman, report them. If you hear bias of any kind, report that to us.

So, we have bias response teams and they give you phone numbers to call if you hear somebody say a microaggressive word on campus, and see it, hear it, report it. We want you turning in your peers if they say something that’s wrong. And what happens, as a result, is, what you get with this is the same problem we had an early history with what was called British Amity Courts. What you also called the High Commissioner Courts and the Star Chamber Courts. These are courts where people turned you in anonymously.

And so when they turn you in for some violation anonymously, what happened in all of these courts, and this is what Europe and particularly Britain had before the American Revolution, when they turned you in, you did not get the right to confront your accuser. Everything is hearsay evidence. No, you don’t need to know who said that, but we were told that you said this and so you don’t get to confront your accuser. Which, you also do not get the right to legal counsel. You’re taken before the kangaroo board of whatever the university has and you don’t get legal counsel.

It”€™s Why You Should Always Get to Confront Your Accusers

David:

A jury of your peers does not get to decide. The higher elites that sit there, unaccountable professors, they will decide what your punishment should be. And you don’t get to call witnesses in your behalf to mitigate whatever that charge might have been. Now see, the way this — and by the way, call in witnesses in your behalf, I mentioned earlier Proverbs 18:17. The Bible says very simply, “€œHe who states his case first seems right until someone cross-examines him and sets the record straight.”€

It’s why you always get a chance to confront your accusers. What they saw might be right, but they didn’t know the rest of the story. And by the way, it turns out they had a bias anyway and so they were trying to get me. And that’s why you always get to call others to give the other side. You want both sides – that establishes truth is when you get both sides in there.

That’s why the Bible says, “€œiron sharpens iron.”€ Sparks may fly, but you come out of the deal sharper. So, if you’re an attorney that practices federal law, you’re familiar with federal practice and procedure. It’s dozens of volumes on how to practice federal law, but volume 30 particularly is of interest. Because volume 30 points out that every one of the due process clauses in the Bill of Rights, the Fourth through the Eighth Amendments, the federal practice procedure points out that every one of them came out of the Bible, that they were all Bible-based, that these are rights that came from the Bible.

Our Legal Codes Go Back to the Bible

David:

Rabbi Lapin talked earlier about how even our legal codes go back to the Bible. The right to confront your accusers, the right to compel witnesses in your behalf, the right to have a jury of your peers aside, all of that comes out of Scriptures and they point that out. And it’s about 60 pages I think and in volume 30. So, what we call the due process rights comes out of Scriptures. That was really big in early American thinking.

When these guys came to Massachusetts, you remember Massachusetts is where the witch trials occurred, and the witch trials occurred, there were 27 people put to death in Massachusetts for that. But what”€™s significant — and by the way, we all need to teach that in history books, and we do, but we never teach the rest of the story. And there were 27 put to death in witch trials. The witch trials stopped when three individuals the Reverend John Wise, Reverend Increase Mather, and Thomas Brattle, approached Governor Phipps and said, “€œPhipps, you do realize that the way that the trials are being run now violates all the Biblical precepts of due process? You’re doing it wrong.”€

Phipps looked at that and said, “€œYou’re right.”€ He got a hold of Judge Samuel Sewell said, “€œShut the trials down. This is not — we’re doing it the European way rather than the Bible Way.”€ And so as a result of being confronted with due process rights, they shut the trials down. Now what”€™s significant is, you’ll always hear about the 27 deaths that happened in New England and you should because they happened.

500,000 Put to Death in Witch Trials in Europe

David:

What you will not hear about is that at the identical time in Europe witch trials were also occurring that put to death 500,000 in Europe. Now, okay, how come we study the 27 and how come not the 500,000? By the way, why was it — see the question should not be, “€œwhy did 27 get put to death?”€ The question should be, “€œWhy was it only 27 that got put to death?”€ And the reason was due process.

We instituted due process rights and that shut the injustice down. Now, due process is the deal, but you won’t hear that. What you’ll hear is the intolerant Christians, those malicious Christians. Yeah, Christians have their problems, but at least they weren’t as bad as secular guys in Europe had. Christians do things wrong because they’re humans.

All humans do things wrong. So, that’s another aspect we don’t hear is you get questions of the American Revolution. See another example of it – you look in textbooks today on why we had the American Revolution, what caused the American Revolution, why we separated from Great Britain, the answer is always real simple – taxation without representation. That’s why we had the Boston Tea Party. Well, the Declaration actually gives 27 reasons why we separated from Great Britain.

27 Reasons Why We Separated From Great Britain

David:

Taxation without representation is reason number 17 out of the 27. That was not even in their most significant top half of what they thought was a big deal. What they listed as 27 reasons were 1) fomenting domestic insurrection, suppression of immigration, legislative abuses – 11, military abuses – 7, judicial abuses – 4. Now there’s a whole lot of things, a whole lot more important in their mind than taxation without representation like legislative abuses, military abuses, and judicial abuses. Matter of fact, when you look at judicial abuses, the judicial abuses all went back to the lack of due process rights.

They weren’t getting due process in British criminal justice proceedings. So, when you look at due process, and you take a bias response team, it violates all the due process rights. And this is what we’re doing on universities is creating biased response teams that eliminate all the things that we give Constitutionally in due process because we don’t want bias on this university. But you don’t get the right to counsel, you don’t get that, you don’t get to know who made the charge, it’s an anonymous charge. All the stuff that we fought against for four hundred years we’re now doing again because we don’t have a clue what a Star Chamber is, or a commissioners court, or a High Admiralty Court, or what that was in American history.

So, that’s — this one is from Utah Valley University. Professors told a report, “€œStudents who make campus less inclusive to the behavioral assessment team.”€ University of Oklahoma already offers 24/7 bias complaint hotline. They now launch a bias response team. You don’t just turn it in, now you’re going to get a visit on this thing.

What is it That Keeps This Liberalism Self-Perpetuating?

David:

Really? So, wrong direction. So, what is it that keeps this liberalism self-perpetuating? Two things keep university liberalism self-perpetuating. One is hiring practices. There are great studies out on hiring practices at the University level.

This is a great study done by Rothman and Lichter, these two guys, man, their studies are just fabulous. They also do studies on the media as well. But what Rothman and Lichter do, and I want to just read you part of the report that they did on university hiring. And what they found was that a randomly based national survey of 1,643 faculty members from 183 four year colleges and universities finds that liberals and Democrats outnumber conservatives and Republicans by large margins, which you’ve seen. And the differences are not limited to elite universities or to the social sciences and humanities.

In other words, every field, every area, every major, every type of school. You continue, “€œA multi-variant analysis finds that even after taking into account the effects of professional accomplishment, along with many other individual characteristics, Conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats.”€ In other words, they are qualified to teach at these other schools, but they’re never hired to teach at these other schools. They have all the qualifications necessary, but you can’t get conservatives and Republicans hired at those schools. Now that’s part of the hiring bias that exists and I’ll tell you more about that in– let”€™s go on–

Republicans, Women, and Practicing Christians Fare Significantly Worse

David:

It says the analysis finds similar effects based on gender and religiosity. That is, women and practicing Christians teach at lower quality schools than their professional accomplishments would predict. They’ve got all the credentials and they got their credentials from right places, but they can’t get a job at those elite universities, at our key state universities. Republicans, women, and practicing Christians fare significantly worse than their colleagues at similar levels of achievement. So, they don’t get the same treatment, they’re discriminated against.

Political conservatism confers a disadvantage in the competition for professional advancement. What happens at university levels, they let the sit in university staff hire the new professors that come in. Well, you’re going to hire people like you, who believe like you, you’re not going to get outside that pool. So, the hiring is largely done– and there are ways of doing that. You can get the faculty, you can get the Regents involved in hiring.

Regents are very sensitive to political opinion. And if they’re going to get their head chewed off for having a stupid professor they’re going to be a lot more careful who they”€™re bringing in. And by the way, regents tend to not be nearly as liberal as the professors in the universities. So, if you give some more hiring authority to administration, rather than self-perpetuating your own fields, that’s one solution.

Hiring Practices of University Professors

David:

That’s when Media Research Center, a second major study, was done on hiring practices of University Professors, and how they hire, and who they hire. And this is the way they characterized the study. You can see the study yourself, but this is their characterization of it. They said liberal professors admit they discriminate against conservatives. As the study went on and what they point out is, college campuses are the training ground for class warfare.

And conservatives have long complained of a strong liberal bias in college classrooms. Now left-leaning academics, this study was done by progressives, left-leaning academics confirmed that they would discriminate against conservatives according to a new study which will be published in the September edition of the journal of Perspectives on Psychological Science. Researchers asked, “€œwhether in choosing between two equally qualified candidates for one job opening they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate over the conservative.”€ One respondent wrote, “€œIf the department members could figure out who was conservative they would be sure not to hire them.”€

A Third Said Openly They Would Discriminate

David:

And that literally is the case. That’s a self-perpetuating nature. They hire people who are like themselves. At least a third of the respondents, at least a third, said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. So, this is what surprised the progressives who did this study, they said, “€œWe can’t believe that a third came out and said openly that they would discriminate.”€

Now here’s the interesting part, it says, “€œThe more liberal the respondent was the more willing they are to discriminate and ironically, the higher their assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.”€ More progressive they are, the more they’ll discriminate, and the more they say, “€œOh, they don’t have a hard time. They have the same rights we all–“€ That’s a twisted worldview. I mean, that”€™s just– but see, that’s why it’s self-perpetuating because they don’t think they discriminate against conservatives. They don’t think what they’re doing is discrimination.

The survey questions “€œWere so blatant that I thought would get a much lower rate of agreement,”€ Mr *EnBarr said, “€œUsually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they discriminate against minorities. We just put the questions out there and they said, “€˜Yes, we’ll discriminate against minorities.”€™”€ So, a third of those hiring openly said, without disguise, that they were happy to discriminate against. See, that’s the kind of hostility that exists and self-perpetuates.

So, university liberalism is self-perpetuating number one by hiring practices. So, that’s part of it, but they don’t hire known conservatives or Christians.

They Fire Known Conservatives and Christians

David:

Number two is they fire known conservative and Christians. So, let me just give you some headlines from recent articles. Here– this is one I love, “€œLawsuit University Fired the Scientist Because He Found Soft Tissue on a Dinosaur Horn.”€Â  Not what he said, what he found. Because he was out doing excavations in some fossil areas and he found the triceratops horn and inside it, it still had soft tissue.

Now, he found it. He didn’t say, I mean, he found — he got fired for finding it. This is what he points out, as he points out, and this is his article over here on the right, it says, “€œSoft tissue in dinosaur bones destroys deep time. Dinosaur bones cannot be old if they’re full of soft tissue,”€ Armitage said in a YouTube video. Deep Time is the lynchpin of evolution.

If you don’t have deep time you don’t have evolution. The whole discussion of evolution ends if you show that the earth is young. You can just erase evolution off the whiteboard because of soft tissue in a dinosaur. He just found soft tissue, and because he found evidence that would support a viewpoint different from what they teach, they fired him just because he found scientific evidence. He didn’t make it up.

The scientist didn’t write a huge paper on it. He found it and got fired over it. He continues, he says, and by the way, he was professionally qualified. Armitage was hired as a microscopist to manage the electronic confocal microscope suite in 2010. He had published some 30 articles in scientific journals about his speciality.  Now, he”€™s an expert in this, but because he found a dinosaur horn of a soft tissue he gets fired

As he points out, that shows the mounting hostility Christians face in academics. Here’s another one, “€œAtheist Turned Christian Professor Denied Promotion.”€ This is out of North Carolina. Mike Adams, a chronology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, won his lawsuit against administrators who denied him a promotion because of his conservative Christian views. That”€™s the only reason he wasn’t promoted – they found out he was a Christian.

No Longer Getting Promotions

David:

As he points out he joined the university in 1993. He was an atheist at the time, “€œGlad to have you.”€ But the year 2000, he converted to Christianity, become an outspoken political conservative, at that point he no longer gets promotions. In 2006, he was denied a promotion. Administrators were retaliating against him for his conservative views, he claimed, and the jury agreed, actually went to court.

So, the state”€™s funding a lawsuit on discrimination where they discriminated, the jury agrees it discriminated, but they’re spending taxpayer dollars to defend their discrimination.

Here’s one – This is New York Post, “€œProfessor Who Tweeted Against the PC Culture is Out At New York University.”€Â  Very simply, a New York professor crusaded against political correctness and student coddling, was booted from classroom last week after his colleagues complained about his “€œincivility.”€Â  Here’s what he said, “€œMy contention is that trigger warning, safe spaces, and bias hotline reporting, is not politically correct, it’s insane.”€ He opposes it. Now, that’s what he said and he got fired for holding that position.

Now notice what else, “€œThe university leaders claim they were worried about me and they expressed concern about my mental health because I said that trigger warnings are crazy and that you don’t need biased reporting. They are concerned about my mental health. They suggested my voicing these opinions was a cry for help,”€Â  he told the Post.

Then they said I should leave and get help.

To Have a Different Opinion Makes One Insane?

David:

He said, “€œThey had no reason to believe my mental health was in question unless to have a different opinion makes one insane.”€ See, that’s the uniformity that happens. If you get outside that, they fire you if you don’t carry the line.

Fired conservative UCLA lecturer, “€œI was let go for purely political reasons.  By UCLA”€™s own measures, I had the highest ratings of any teacher in the entire department.  That”€™s true, student ratings and all the peers, all the highest ratings.  The students loved my classes.  But his department chair was upset over his appearance on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program.

She has stated she never liked me and thought someone of my views shouldn’t teach in the department. He appears on Fox News, that gets him fired, just for appearing on Fox News.

Then you have, “€œJesuit University Moves to Fire Conservative Professor For His Political Views.”€Â  Marquette University has moved to suspend and then fire professor, John McAdams, for backing a student who tried to defend man/woman marriage when a leftist teaching assistant shut the student down. Junior faculty member Cheryl Abbott told a student that his defense of man/woman marriage was an unacceptable topic in her ethics class and compared his views to racism.

She then told the student he should drop class. On his very popular blog, Professor McAdams outed the incident and he charged the teaching assistant with “€œusing a tactic typical among liberals now.”€

Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong and are not to be argued against on their merits, but they are deemed offensive and need to be shut up. No discussion allowed on these things. It was announced that a diverse faculty committee recommended to the university president that McAdams lose his job unless he admits his guilt and apologized within the next two weeks, which he didn”€™t. What guilt is he supposed to admit? The guilt of bringing out someone who didn’t want discussion of a viewpoint?

Once You Expose Yourself as Being Conservative, You”€™re Out

David:

Again, once you expose yourself as being conservative, you’re out in university after university. Last one I’ll show you, “€œProfessor Tries to Get Conservatives Fired Over a Facebook Argument.”€Â  This is here in Texas. Texas State University history professor called the employers of at least two conservatives in retribution over a political disagreement on Facebook. In other words, there were two on Facebook who took a different position than the professor and so the professor started calling the employers to get the two fired.

Get the two– “€œThey had a different opinion from me. You”€™ve got to fire them. You”€™ve got to punish them for having a different opinion.”€ Elizabeth Bishop, who”€™s to become the next dean of the College of Liberal Arts, made phone calls to employers and a university department in an attempt to punish the two conservatives for daring to disagree with her in a Facebook discussion. I thought in a discussion you could have different opinions – no, you”€™ve got to have the same opinion.

Continues, “€œThe conservative decried Texas state’s apparent double standard in allowing a radical communist, Angela Davis, to speak on campus, calling her an American terrorist. But not allowing the College Republicans to hold a Women’s Empowerment Summit.”€ Now, get the deal, Angela Davis, UCLA professor, coming to Texas State to speak. If you remember, she was involved in the Weather Underground shooting, she provided the guns to them. She was actually on the FBI’s ten most wanted fugitive list as a domestic terrorist.

She was the head of the Communist Party of the United States of America. And they have her on campus and that’s fine, but you cannot hold a Republican Empowerment Summit for women on campus. And one said, “€œThat’s not fair to have one and not the other.”€ And she called and said, “€œYou”€™ve got to fire this guy. He had a different opinion from me.”€ Really?

That’s the Monolithic Viciousness That Exists in Many Universities

David:

See, that’s the monolithic viciousness that exists in many universities. I can give you scores of examples like these. This is just showing you the tone that’s out there. And this is what they found in the hiring practices from those two studies I showed you. What are some possible takeaways that we can do with this?

Rick:

Alright, folks, that’s all the time we”€™ve got for David’s presentation to legislators for the day. We will get the conclusion next Monday. And that’s where we really dive into the solutions. Things that legislators can do and you can encourage them to do. And things that you can do as well to turn this thing around.

We’re back in studio now with David and Tim. And man, these examples, David, that you’re sharing of what’s happening on campus, I hope it kind of shakes people out of their slumber to realize what they’re sending their kids into.

David:

Yeah. See, these are examples, but they’re self-perpetuating because as we point out, this is now the current hiring practice. So, those who hire in the universities hire others who believe like them. And so this is now a self-perpetuating system because it does not have the outside influence, it does not have the sunlight. And certainly, what we’re doing in this program, what we did with legislators, was to help bring some of the stuff to light so that they’ll be aware of it, so they can start putting the spotlight on universities in their own states.

We”€™re Having to Create Entirely New Vocabulary Words Now

David:

But I mean, we’re having to create entirely new vocabulary words now. Ten years ago, who knew what a safe space was? Or a trigger warning?  A microaggression?  A snowflake? Or anything else?

Much less extended adolescence. By definition, adolescence used to go until you were 18 years old and that’s when you became an adult. Now we’re talking about adolescence going to 30-35 and 40 by government’s own stats. You don’t become an adult until you’re 35 or 40? See, that’s what university is doing now is really setting back the entire culture.

Tim:

But, guys, this is also a reflection that we are now looking at behavior and using behavior to define the standard. Instead of saying, “€œNo here’s the standard and your behavior needs to match this.”€ Right? We’re not telling18-year-oldss, “€œHey, you need to grow up and you are now an adult, act like one.”€ What the government does, is they say, “€œWell, the reason we think adolescence lasts into the 30s or even up to 40 is because that’s what behavior reveals is they’re still acting adolescent at that age.”€

Well, we don’t measure a standard, or we don’t use a behavior to define what the standard is. And this is one of the things that universities are doing is they”€™re saying, “€œWell, no, those standards are flexible. There are no absolutes.”€ Right? “€œThere’s no moral structure.”€

And all these crazy courses we’re teaching, they are promoting a lack of values, or a subjective value, or even a collective subjective system.   It doesn’t work in reality.   This is why we’re seeing the problems at universities.

There Are Solutions if We Put Good Leaders And Professors In Place

Rick:

Well, and the good news is it can be turned around. There are solutions if we put good leaders in place that will make the tough decisions to do it. And if we the citizens will push for that, but we’ve got to know what to do. First, we identify the problem then we start talking about what the solution is to that particular problem. And this one is a big one, so don’t miss next Monday, we’re going to dive into the solutions.

It’s the last of this five-part series on what’s happening on university campuses and how we can turn it around. The message David Barton shared at the Pro-Family Legislators Conference and we will get part 5 next Monday. So, have a great weekend. Thanks for listening to WallBuilders Live and we’ll catch you next Monday.