Category Archives: Critical Thinking

College Is More Than Just a Thing You Do

Posted on by under Critical Thinking, Society

During my junior year at Whittier College, I was the managing editor of our student newspaper. We put out an issue every week throughout the school year, which involved the combined efforts of a diverse mix of students who reported, wrote, and edited the stories, took the photographs, and handled the layout. I have fond memories of that time.

In each issue there were a few column inches of space set aside for an editorial. The editor-in-chief and I traded off each week writing the column. Most of them were last-minute compositions, often little more that whatever was on our mind that day. Some were pretty good. Others were not.

This being the 1988-1989 school year, the AIDS epidemic was on everybody’s mind to some degree. One week I wrote an editorial column that essentially repeated the conspiracy theory that the World Health Organization (WHO) was responsible for creating the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). I spent no time researching this topic and thus was simply repeating a rumor without bothering to consider the implications.

After that issue was published, I got a stern talking-to by our faculty advisor Gary Libman, a professional journalist at the Los Angeles Times and Whittier alum. He calmly stressed the importance of journalistic integrity and the need to critically assess and publish the facts, even in an editorial. He reminded me that as editors of a publication we have a responsibility to our readers that includes avoiding giving voice to rumor, hearsay, and misinformation. He was clearly unhappy that my column made it into print. Although he did not force me to issue a retraction or an apology, he probably wished he had been able to intervene before our publication date.

Me at Whittier College in 1990

This event from almost 40 years ago clearly made an impression on me. And I didn’t have to be told twice. I regretted my mistake, took Gary’s lessons to heart, and used this teachable moment as a chance to learn.

Because that is why I went to college–to learn. It sounds strange to have to say that, but it seems that more and more I am hearing about people who go to college not to learn but for some other reason. These include:

  • to get a job (a fine goal but not mutually exclusive of learning, one would hope)
  • to make a lot of money (education provides riches that money can’t buy)
  • to get The Degree (which feels more like the checking of a box than actual learning)
  • to be told things that align with your existing worldview (challenging assumptions is exactly what college exists for, so this makes no sense to me)
  • to play football (college is an educational institution first and foremost, in my view)
  • to get phenomenally drunk as often as possible (a classic college activity but not conducive to learning)
  • to get laid (again, classic but you can do that without having to pay tuition).

I’m going to be clear and say that I think these reasons are all bullshit, and here’s why.

College is a place that provides one of those rare opportunities in life: it places the individual student into a learning environment that is probably the richest they will ever encounter before or since. And by “learning environment” I mean both inside the classroom, on campus during non-class hours, and in the surrounding community. During my years in college, I was far removed from my sheltered suburban life, having to interact every day with people who were different from me and see through their eyes how they viewed the world.

College also is a place where faculty puts time and effort toward growing real, human intelligence, not artificial intelligence.

Furthermore, college is usually attended at an age when young adults are the most open to these learning opportunities. We are very much like sponges at that age, soaking up these new experiences and using them (hopefully) to help us shed the prejudices of our upbringing.

But the student must be willing to learn. Evidently, there are people who manage to get through four years of college without learning a thing. This is pointless. It is a waste of money and a waste of both the students’ and the professors’ time.

Sadly, the confluence of a variety of factors including market forces, academia that does not easily acknowledge or embrace change, and a growing distrust of our basic societal institutions such as schools, churches, and government has brought us to the brink of disaster as a nation.

This impending disaster wears two faces. One is the face of those young people who view college as just something to put on your resume, as a thing you do leading from here to there. These people are going to college only because they feel they have to, or their parents insist they do, or they think they want the ‘college experience’ (see drunk and getting laid above). Some of these maybe will emerge on the other side having been changed by the experience, and we’re lucky if they do.

The other face is of those who see college as an outright “scam” to be avoided. These are people who should be going to college–any college–but are not. And thus we have a growing number of citizens who have access to some of the best higher education in the world but instead are turning away.

To be clear, I agree that the academic demands and the traditional structures of college means that it is not suitable for everybody. However, the things college teaches–critical thinking, awareness that there is more than one way of seeing things, learning that life is more than just grubbing for money–are very suitable for every person who wants to live in our multicultural, modern society. If they don’t get those things from college, I hope they get them from somewhere.

Everyone Has the Right to Life, Yes?

Posted on by under Compassion, Critical Thinking

Me: I think the United States should express more concern and support for the thousands of innocent Palestinian lives lost in Gaza.

Other people: That’s antisemitic.

Me: What? Everyone has a right to life, yes? Isn’t it supporting human rights?

OP: No. You are not allowed to criticize the actions of Israel. That is antisemitism.

Me: Oh? I didn’t know that. So maybe the United States should not acknowledge any major loss of life due to state action to avoid upsetting any other countries. For example, maybe we should stop remembering Pearl Harbor Day on December 7 or the Nanjing Massacre on December 13. It might be seen as anti-Japanese.

OP: No that’s different. You’re allowed to remember Pearl Harbor Day and the Nanjing Massacre.

Me: But won’t the Japanese feel like it is a criticism of the actions of their country?

OP: I don’t know. Maybe. But it doesn’t matter. Any country can be criticized for its human rights record except Israel.

Me: Really? Why?

OP: Because it’s antisemitism.

Me: Who defines what it means to be antisemitic?

OP: Israel.

Me: Huh, very interesting. What if Japan decides that continued remembrances of Pearl Harbor Day or the Nanjing Massacre are anti-Japanese?

OP: They can’t do that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because over 2,400 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and something like 300,000 in Nanjing. Such atrocities should be remembered.

Me: In that case, over 65,000 Japanese were killed when the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Should that be remembered?

OP: Maybe.

Me: And over 40,000 people have been killed in Gaza.

OP: No, that’s different. You are not allowed to talk about that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because Israel cannot be criticized for its actions. That’s antisemitism.

Me: So you’re saying that the only country in the whole world that can declare itself immune to criticism is Israel?

OP: Yes.

Me: Fascinating.

America Throws Hissy Fit, Elects Class Bully President

Posted on by under Critical Thinking

In a temper tantrum over things not going their way, America chose an aged convicted criminal and bully as their chief executive.

Citing no valid complaints, Americans overwhelmingly opted for a chronic liar who utterly failed in his previous attempt at running the country, to run it again.

“Waaaaah! Border security! Waaaaah!” said a voter named Adolph, who withheld his last name out of fear that people would learn about his belief that White people are the Master Race.

When asked what policies Donald Trump would be effective at implementing, Adolph said “Waaaaah! No socialism! Waaaaah!”

Voters once again rejected a woman for president, citing sexism and misogyny. And racism. But mostly sexism, and some racism thrown in for good measure. But definitely sexism.

And racism. Yes, that too.

An average voter, who identified himself as Vladimir, said a woman cannot be trusted to run America.

When it was pointed out that women have successfully run Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand, he said “Sure.”

When asked to clarify, Vlad said “America will never have a woman as president as long as a single man remains breathing.” He then commenced to flex his muscles for this reporter.

Polls show that Vlad, Adolph, and other average natural born Americans lean heavily toward a dystopian style of government, where guns are plentiful and civil rights are few.

Also, a majority of legal, registered voters said they are the downtrodden minority fighting against an overwhelming number of illegal noncitizens.

Plans are underway for the most spectacular inauguration of any president ever in the past or the future. Sources close to the planning, who have requested to remain anonymous due to threats from the dangerous radical left, have confirmed that the ceremonies will include detonation of a nuclear device.

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ King

Posted on by under Critical Thinking

A few years ago I wrote a post that said, essentially, that in getting himself elected president in 2016, Donald Trump wanted to be the head of state. He wanted all of the adulation and ornamentation that accrues to heads of state, such as monarchs. But he did not want to be bothered with mundane things such as passing laws and governing.

I’m learning that there is a lot of agreement on this point.

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent out mailers saying exactly that: No Kings In America. They don’t implicate Trump directly but it’s clear what point they’re trying to make.

I think it is worth noting that our Founding Fathers were very aware and very concerned about this new country devolving into a monarchy. They were breaking from a long tradition of people ruled by hereditary kings and they wanted to guard against the citizens of the United States running for the comfort of the familiar when things got tough.

The Constitution specifies that the chief executive is an elected position and that they are in power for only four years before being subject to reelection by the people. It also says that we have a republican (small R) form of government, i.e. not a monarchy.

More explicitly, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 69 took pains to point out exactly how unlike a king the office of president is intended to be, including the following: “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince.”

America does not need a king. We are a republic founded on democratic principles, and we are admired for it.

Now is not the time to abandon the effort. I believe we can make our system of government work without a king. But we have to want to.

Because I Am Involved in Mankind

Posted on by under Compassion, Critical Thinking

As I said in a previous post, lies spread because people want to believe them. They need to believe because often it goes to their very identity. Without those lies, they would lose their sense of self.

And people are fed lies for related reasons. Primarily, it is to create an atmosphere of confusion, out of which power brokers, politicians, and cultural elites can solidify and reinforce their power.

I just read an insightful article on this topic, laying out the framework under which lies are used to seize and retain power. Written by Leo E. Strine, Jr., a law professor, and published by Harvard Law School, it says that “The utility of those [false and misleading] issues is to inculcate a sense of identity and fealty in the masses who serve as their power base.” (“Inculcate” means to impress upon the mind through frequent repetition–I had to look it up.)

Think about it: picture for yourself someone–either in person or online–who is vehemently defending the position that all abortions should be illegal everywhere, or that climate change is only accepted by those “indoctrinated” by the “woke”, or that vaccines cause harm and create no health benefits. When you try to present an alternative to their worldview–using facts, logic, or reason–what happens? They get angry, they get upset, they start name-calling, some even begin to issue threats.

Why? Because they are scared. Like a cornered wild animal, they are lashing out.

And why is that? Because your perfectly legitimate views–based on facts, logic, and reason–threaten their very existance.

Because those lies have created for them the equivalent of family, of The Team, of Us (versus Them). It is protection from the terrors of an uncertain future. It is where they feel most safe and secure, even when, paradoxically, they are actually embarking on a path toward their own harm (such as with the refusal to get vaccinated against preventable disease, or the refusal to take rational action to prepare for a changed climate).

What then? We have seen hints of what is coming: fanaticism, tribalism, dissolution, violence.

Would it not be in everyone’s best interest if those stoking the fires with their self-serving lies were to turn down the rhetoric? Show some humility? Show some humanity and acknowledge that all lives are interconnected?

Strine’s advice is this: “When someone denies fact, mainstream institutions should call that out and refuse to legitimize their misinformation tactics.  Lies should be labeled as lies.”

That’s as good a place to start as any.