Custom Search

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Indoctrination 101

[Update-] The University of Delaware has removed all publicly available links to the program’s content. Thanks to Jason Steck from The Van Der Galiën Gazette, for the email alerting us. Go read about it.... Via another email from Emily it seems that President of U. of Del. has called for the immediate elimination of this program. I will update with a supporting link s soon as it is available.....VERIFIED, Hat tip to Hot Air[End Update]

"Something's wrong with the world today, I don't know what it is. Something's wrong with our eyes. I'm seein' things in a different way and God knows it ain't his. It sure ain't no surprise..." Aerosmith

Atlas Shrugged

"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." Ayn Rand.

There is a quote that is used several times in Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged, used by several characters throughout the book: "There is something wrong with the world." I tend to agree. Like the characters in the book, first published in 1957, I see a general decay in the world around me today as I travel and work. I see people who frankly just don't give a damn; not about their work, or how well they do their work, not about the way they look, not about the conditions in which they live...not about anything. This isn't limited to any one race, any one sex, any one segment of social standing. My work puts me in contact with people from all walks of life, and the decay is there, in all but one segment of society: older people. It begins with people my age, those in their forties; a general lack of self-respect and contempt for others, a sullen resignation to things. With the next generation down, there is not only the lack of self-respect and contempt, but a blatant embracing of such attitudes. Think I'm wrong? Look around you at what you see when you walk out the door tomorrow. How many well dressed, well groomed twenty somethings do you see? How many overweight young people (and I'll confess here that I'm certainly no John Basedow, far from it, but self-realization comes from reflection upon one's self and reflection of the mirror, as it were.)

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Ready? It's a shocker. Those who don't respect themselves can have no respect for others.

I can't exactly pin point an exact period in time when it began. Perhaps it's always been there, just under the surface, festering, growing, a malignancy upon the collective soul of mankind. Some who see problems and have concerns are more than willing to point their fingers at the flower power generation, the free love society, the "dawning of the age of Aquarius."

I'm not so sure.

What I DO know is this, and I've said it for a long time now, starting before my soiree into the field of education, and more critically after I walked away from the field in utter disgust at the entire system. Our children are being indoctrinated. OUR generation was indoctrinated. I would dare say that our PARENTS were indoctrinated to some degree as well.

There are phases to this indoctrination; I'm going to touch on just a few of them. I hope in doing so that I may spark some recognition within you to see them, and that we can all begin to start undoing some of the damage that has already been done.


The first I'll mention is the vilification of industry and corporations. I don't even see the need to cite any references for this one, as it's so heavily prevalent in the attitude of the American worker and the American media. Anyone who makes money, anyone who generates a means by which others make money, is under fire. How many of you would like to be Bill Gates? How many out there would like to hold stock in Halliburton? Exxon? In fact, the only corporate giant who seemed to be able to win the love of the American people in the past several years was Sam Walton. Or Oprah Winfrey.

But Oprah CARES. She CRIES and she TOUCHES us...


But how did Sam Walton amass his fortune? He WORKED for it. He used his mind and his abilities. He competed. He did what he needed to do and he reaped the benefits of his labor. How, then, is he different from Gates and Trump and any other mogul you may want to name? He isn't. Each one of these people has worked for the position that they have attained and have been successful in doing so.

But if we are to listen to SOME in our society, they have no right to enjoy what they have worked for. They have to share. It's not right for people to be wealthy. According to one caller in to the Steve Gill Show yesterday, anyone making over $200,000.00 a year should have to pay one hundred percent tax on anything OVER that mark.

October 30, 2007 - 09:19

A West Tennessee caller suggested today that taxing the super rich folks who earn over $200,000 should pay 100% of their income above that level as taxes because anybody with that much money has "made enough." The "evil" top 1% of earners in this country already pay 40% of the total federal income tax burden, but Sarge and the Democrats think they are "taking" too much without paying their fair share...

Do you think you're paying enough in taxes? Or do you agree with Charlie Rangel that you should be paying more of your hard earned money in as taxes?


Two more from Ayn Rand:

"What objectivity and the study of philosophy requires is not an 'open mind,' but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically."

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is – i.e. he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts – i.e. he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance."

I've written before about revisionist history and my strong stance against it. School should be a place for learning HOW to think, not what to think. History, philosophy, civics, mathematics, and language skills. We've allowed politically correct thinking and mindset to infiltrate our "social studies" programs.

Case in point: during my senior year in high school, one of my teachers presented our class (I won't mention the name of the teacher or which class was being taught) with a "documentary" on the conditions of the children in Ethiopia. This was the mid-80's, the conditions in Ethiopia were civil war, famine, and plague. I can't remember which group had sent him the film, UNICEF if I'm not mistaken, but it only showed the starvation and the hunger of the citizenry. The entire classroom had felt the tugs of the heartstrings. I raised my hand and asked "what about the reports of the army (communist regime at the time) confiscating all incoming shipments of food and using it to feed the troops instead of the people?" Stunned silence on the part of my teacher. I was the only senior male in the room, I was already enlisted in the army, and was keeping an eye on potential hot spots that I might be deployed to during my time in service. I don't recall anyone stepping forward to contribute any money for the Ethiopian cause that day.

Why is this important, you ask? I made a point NEVER, EVER, to let my political opinions or my "causes" infiltrate my classroom setting, and I was a teacher of history and government. It's unprofessional, it's improper, and in my mind, it's unethical. Had he presented the facts of the situation, that there was a war in Ethiopia, that people were starving, that UNICEF was taking donations, that the government was not allowing the people access to the food that was being sent, blah blah blah blah BLAH, I would have no problem with it.

My problem was with the "agenda."

Education is filled with people with an "agenda" today. That's one reason our schools are turning out graduates who think two plus two equals five, and that "cat" is spelled k-a-t.

This brings us to another point in our look into indoctrination; the agenda that makes whites responsible for all the suffering and hardship of the world, thus making them the modern "bourgeoisie" for our budding communist generation. Let us first revisit the Communist Manifesto to read what it has to say:

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

In the time of Marx and Engles, the bourgeoisie would have been today's Trumps, Gates, and so forth. Today, it's an association of guilt for being white because of the actions in the past of our European ancestors. I suppose that for someone like myself, of mixed European and American Indian heritage, that I should feel a special self loathing for myself because part of my ancestors were mean to other parts of my ancestors? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Yet and still in Delaware, we have a situation at a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY where they are being indoctrinated with such racist attitudes against whites. Hat tip to Hot Air for this:

University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation

October 30, 2007

FIRE Press Release
NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world...”

Um, right. I thought we were supposed to be trying to STOP racist attitudes, not turn them around on white people?

"Guilt is a rope that wears thin." Ayn Rand.

The expected reply from the university:

October 31, 2007

Samantha K. Harris
Director of Legal and Public Advocacy
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Dear Ms. Harris,

Thank you for your letter to President Patrick Harker dated October 29, 2007 detailing your concerns about the University of Delaware’s residence life educational program. I appreciate your commitment to the role of free speech in education. Though we may articulate views quite differently, a commitment to free speech is one we share. As noted in our own literature, “the central mission of the University of Delaware is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas.”

Your letter asserts a number of conclusions that can be supported by a selective citation of documents, but are not actualized. The idea that students are “required to adopt university approved views” on the issues listed is not a goal of this institution or of the residence life department. This type of goal is both highly undesired and wholly unattainable. Students are challenged to express themselves as free-thinking citizens. The indoctrination you speak of serves no educational purpose and does not exist as part of a systematic effort on this campus. I assume that you have noted the absence of any policy, rule, or regulation pertaining to your concerns about disciplinary action being taken against students for unwillingness to be changed in the manner that you describe.

There is in fact a program within the residence halls that engages students in self –examination of the roles they hope to take in society. This effort is consistent with the mission of the University which states, “Our graduates should know how to reason critically and independently…communicate clearly in writing and speech, and develop into informed citizens and leaders.” The program is designed to encourage students to think about and to consider a number of issues, but all make their own decisions about the outcome of this reflection. FIRE’s assertion that students are told what to think is inaccurate. In common with FIRE, our institution values free speech, active voice, and open dialogue. We believe that students learn and grow in part by engaging in significant discussions on both sides of the classroom door.

I do acknowledge that there have been some missteps with the implementation of our program. This is a new effort involving over two hundred staff. As with any University educational endeavor assessment and feedback measures have been established to identify issues or concerns. Each of the issues FIRE presents are currently under review. In fact, we recently became aware that students in several residence halls were told their participation is mandatory at these activities and we have taken steps to clarify this misconception and to notify students of their rights in this area.

Additionally, I would like to briefly comment on several of the other concerns expressed in your letter.

* The information about "best and worst" RA/resident one-on-ones are certainly of concern, but taken out of context. This terminology has only been used by supervisors to ask Resident Assistants to reflect on their facilitation skills and never to describe students or the outcome of a conversation.

* Students are not required to participate in any residential activity, educational program, or to maintain the University provided nametag on their door. We do, however, encourage students to participate in as many experiences as they are able as we believe this enhances their life at the University.

* We share your concern about the language used in our assessment plan. The term “treatment” is commonly used in research and assessment literature. Admittedly, this language is easily misinterpreted and may be construed as inappropriate for use in this educational setting. On the other hand, your assertion that “progress is apparently determined by examining whether there is an increasing proportion of ‘right’ answers over time” is not an accurate way to describe the aim of the program or assessment goals.

I have tremendous respect for the ability of our students as well as their emotional and intellectual capacity. My main point of contention out of the multiple assertions is that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education seems to presume that our students are so empty-headed and ignorant that they would be "indoctrinated" with ease. I believe you have underestimated the quality and caliber of our students. You have examined many internal and public documents in your search for concerns. I invite you to explore our web site more fully to get a better picture of the capacity of a University of Delaware student. You will find that they are highly intelligent and capable to assert their viewpoints and to face challenges from a variety of areas. Our students are fully able to encounter multiple values and perspectives and remain true to their own identity. As they emerge from college, their ability to use their free speech rights will be only one of many talents they possess. While I consider many of your points to be open for legitimate discussion and debate, the supposition that University of Delaware students are simply empty vessels to be filled by any willing authority figure is an unstated assertion where we can find no common ground...

Yadda yadda yadda. As I said, the expected reply from the university.

Let's see what the rest of you think. From the University of Delaware website:

Diversity Initiatives
Diversity Vision Statement

"The Office of Residence Life, within its offices and its residence halls, will become a place where diversity among people is recognized, valued and demonstrated. Racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism and other behaviors and systems that empower some while oppressing others will not be tolerated. Programs, policies, and procedures will reflect the importance and acceptance of diversity. Actions that encourage and promote diversity will be valued and rewarded."
Diversity Committee Information

The Office of Residence Life Diversity Committee is a group of professional staff members and graduate assistants working to encourage and support the diversity vision of the Office of Residence Life by integrating diversity values into all aspects of the department culture. The committee coordinates the campus-wide diversity efforts of the Office of Residence Life and supports the many other diversity programs offered by Residence Life staff to residents on a complex, building, or floor community level. The Diversity committee develops diversity training modules for all levels of Residence Life staff and coordinates initiatives such as the Unity Project and Multicultural Leadership Retreat. For more information please contact Michele Kane, Assistant Director for Residence Education and Chair of the Diversity Committee at
Multicultural Leadership Retreat
Unity Project

Whole New World Training
Minority Student Network

The Minority Student Network (MSN) provides a social network and support system for students of color living on East Campus but is open to all. The group provides programs, trips, hot topic discussions, and social gathering for students. For more information contact the MSN advisor, Ivet Ziegelbauer.

Quest plans, sponsors, and supports diversity programming on campus. The group is comprised of Residence Life staff and residence hall students committed to diversity issues. Quest projects include initiatives like the monthly Being Educated About Diversity (BEAD) Project, the Diversity Film Series and Black History Month Task Force. Quest also actively supports diversity programming on campus. The Graduate Assistant for Diversity Initiatives is the advisor for Quest . For more information about Quest, please contact Michele Kane at

Did you catch that "Whole New World Training" segment? The title alone speaks volumes, in my way of thinking.


A great part of the problem, I think, is the altruistic mindset that is pervading the world today. You see it everywhere. Volunteer to help do this, pitch in a hand to help do that. There is NOTHING wrong with pitching in and giving a hand to others, as long as it doesn't become the be all, end all of your existance.

What is altruism?

Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. Some newer philosophies such as egoism have criticized the concept, with writers such as Nietzsche arguing that there is no moral obligation to help others.

Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition.

The concept has a long history in philosophical and ethical thought, and has more recently become a topic for psychologists, sociologists, evolutionary biologists, and ethologists. While ideas about altruism from one field can have an impact on the other fields, the different methods and focuses of these fields lead to different perspectives on altruism.

Rand on altruism: "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value – and so long as that beneficiary is anybody than oneself, anything goes."

Indoctrination of our youth has even reached to the point of coming to them across the television. Nickelodeon television has entered into this trend by using children to show other children how to "stand up to the man." Hat tip to ArmyWifeToddlerMom, Michelle Malkin, and STOP the ACLU for this one:

Nickelodeon is trying to brainwash your children in the morning, or a leftist primer
My Husband sent me this link this morning. Please watch this, in its entirety. It is imperative that you SEE what Nickelodeon is showing at 5:00am.


Linda Ellerbee is the host, that should be enough said.

Pay particular attention to the second and fourth stories.

This Nickelodeon "news program", is not a news program. It is a leftist primer on how to be a "left-wing radical REBEL".

I am not a blind follower of our Government, and I also think that Government should be watched by it's citizens. It is our civic duty.

However this program led by Ellerby, is anti-war, anti- GWOT, anti-military.

This "news program" is not about people changing the World around them.

Ms. Ellerby uses leftist propaganda buzz words like "taking on the establishment".

She shows a group of "tweenagers" walking around in orange jumpsuits, hooded and yelling from a bullhorn. "We are not ok, with people being tortured by American soldiers!" "Are cooperation's priority over human lives?"

There is also a call for the impeachment of the President in the second segment of the video, "democracy is at stake because of the President violating the Constitution".

The fourth segment of video shows another tweenager, who has put together a video of wounded Iraqi children, with the song Jesus Loves Me playing over it. This teenager blames America, the military, for what is happening in Iraq. This young girl says "she finds, videos and facts on the Internet" to show what is REALLY happening in Iraq. I am guessing she is getting these images from Al Jazeera.

Nickelodeon is the new training ground for leftist propaganda.

Amazing. You really must watch this video...

Children making anti-establishment statements. It brings to mind something said by someone back in the 1950's (surprise, it's not Ayn Rand this time):

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as "We will bury you!" ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception in Moscow in November, 1956.[1] The translation has been controversial because it was presented out of context as being belligerent. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you"(Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас похороним)—a meaning more akin to "we will attend your funeral" than "we shall cause your funeral".

Several online sources incorrectly claim that he made this statement at the United Nations General Assembly on October 11, 1960, when he is said to have pounded the table with his shoe, or with an extra shoe he had brought with him explicitly for that purpose. [2] (Occasionally these incorrect reports give the date October 12, the date this incident was reported in most newspapers.)

Speaking some years later in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev himself remarked, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you", [3] a nod to the popular Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism." Khrushchev later went on to explain that socialism would replace capitalism in the same manner that capitalism itself supplanted feudalism. (This is an orthodox view of Marx's theory of history.)

It would seem that his prediction has been put into practice. I can't imagine these children doing this for Nickelodeon without the approval and permission of their parents. But then again there are a lot of things children do that are done without their parents approval today that sometimes leave me wondering at the fitness of the parents...

"When you come to a fork in the road....Take it." Yogi Berra.

The bottom line is this. We are reaching an ideological crossroads. If our society is to survive, we must truly do as the title of this blogsite says and WAKE UP, AMERICA!

The freedoms we love and cherish today are not free. They have been bought and paid for with the price of the blood of patriots; of men and women who believed in freedom and in the rights of the individual. That fight continues today. Like it or not, agree with what you think the motives might be or not, that fight continues today in the sands of the Middle East. We are under assault not just by Islamic jihadists, but by a mindset within our own nation that the greater good outweighs the needs and rights of the individual. And that mindset is choking the will out of the American people. It suffocates the spirit of creativity. It stifles individual achievement.

We complain that our jobs, our factories, our manufacturing, have gone overseas, and yet we put in office the very people who tax our producers to the point they are driven to take their industries overseas. Why? Because it isn't fair that one person should make more money than someone else.

We leave our borders open so that millions upon millions of illegal aliens have entered our country and we see our own culture diluted and diminished. Why? Because the evil white men have oppressed the rest of the world, and it isn't fair.

Our children graduate from high school unable to cope, compete, or function in society. They can no longer rely on industry for work because we've created a situation where there is little industry, or what industry there is has hired cheap labor from a growing pool of illegals. Why? Because it's more important that our children be taught their self worth based upon what they can do for others so that they'll feel good, rather than teaching them the importance of diligence and self worth through their own accomplishments.

Why do we do these things?

Because we have become inverted.

But we can not live in an inverted world.

"The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth." John Galt quote that ended Ayn Rand's last public speech (New Orleans Nov 1981)

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man