When everything began to be politicized and
weaponized in America, survey taking and statistical analysis did not escape
the trend. They too were used to “prove” the validity of conclusions that were
arrived at before the taking of the surveys, and before the compilation of the
data.
And so, imagine someone being in charge of an
agenda that is at odds with the prevailing culture. He cannot move the agenda
forward using the usual method of presenting his case and letting the audience
decide whether or not he was convincing. What do you think this character will
do after the audience rejects his presentation on the grounds that it was based
on faulty logic?
As it happens, there is an example on what someone
did in response to such a situation. That someone is Wall Street Journal
correspondent, James Freeman who put his idea in the form of an article under
the title: “Most U.S. College Students Afraid to Disagree with Professors” and
the subtitle: “New survey finds faculty often express beliefs unrelated to
course work.” It was published on October 26, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.
What is James Freeman saying? Well, speaking of a
survey that was done recently, he said this: “Polling was done on behalf of a
Yale program, which counts your humble correspondent among its directors.”
Freeman asserts at the beginning of the article that the survey reveals: “Many
college professors share their social and political beliefs in class, and their
students feel afraid to disagree”.
This also being the title of the article, you
think that the writer will give a detailed explanation as to the questions that
were asked and the method that was used to reach those conclusions. But going
through the article, this is what you discover. The survey was conducted among
800 students. The question asked was this: “Have you ever had any professor or
course instructor that used class time to express social or political beliefs
unrelated to the subject of the course?” According to Freeman, 52% said this
happens often; 47% said not often.
First of all, given that the number of students
surveyed was only 800, the margin of error can be as much as plus or minus 5%.
And given the closeness of the percentages between the yea and the nay, it
means that the use of the terms “most students” and “many professors” were
exaggerations designed to deceive the readers. Second of all, nothing in the
article indicates what discipline the professors were teaching when they went
on a tangent discussing a different subject. It is crucial to know this for a
reason.
For example, was the professor explaining Newton's
Second Law when he suddenly decided to talk about his mother in law? Or was the
professor explaining why Pearl Harbor was a serious blow to America's navy,
when a student asked if something like this can happen again, and the professor
said it can? Other students asked other questions, one thing led to another,
and the professor remarked that one political party or the other might get in
the way of passing a budget that would balance the needs of defense and those
of social programs. Did the professor commit a mortal sin for which James
Freeman wants to crucify him?
In addition to that nonsense, you have another set
of numbers which shows how irrelevant the survey actually was. Look at this:
“53% of students reported they felt intimidated in sharing their ideas in class
because they were different from those of the professors, whereas 54% said they
felt intimidated when their views conflicted with those of their peers.” This
means prof or no prof; half the students are shy and the other half are not.
Someone ought to tell Freeman this is true in every social setting, be it the
classroom, the office, the shop floor or the kitchen table. Tell it to Freeman
because he made the ghastly mistake of ending the article as follows:
“The free exchange of ideas is in danger on
American campuses. And given the unprofessional behavior of American faculty
suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus on
encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a
campus slogan from an earlier era: Don't trust anyone over 30”.
Do you know what this means, my friend? It means
that James Freeman wants someone (education reformers) to come up with a way to
silence the bureaucracy and faculty of the colleges and universities. While
this is happening, he wants to encourage what he calls free speech advocates to
do their shtick, which includes swamping the campuses with the slogan: Don't
trust anyone over 30 … such as the professors and the counselors.
Do you know what's behind this, my friend? Let me
tell you. The Jewish propaganda machine has set-up a program to train Jewish
freshmen on how to pretend being “free speech advocates,” and storm into the
“safe spaces” where the students that came to learn science or the humanities
gather to have some quiet.
As to what the Jewish students will do to
ascertain that Jewish style free speech reigns on campus, we got a glimpse of
that when stories surfaced about mobs of Jewish students imposing themselves on
gentile student gatherings. They tried to force the gentiles to drop everything
they were doing and listen to the Holocaust stories the Jews came to tell them
about.
James Freeman has used the Jewish method of defaming
someone; this time the American faculty, as a first step to the eventual
control of the system of higher education. The ultimate aim is to have
education in America serve Israel and all the Jewish causes.
To that end, Freeman has accused American faculty
of being unprofessional. This may be true, but only in the sense that it has
him as a member.