At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Systemic Ideological Bias in Higher Ed

posted by Jack Kerwick

Among the variety of other topics that it explores, my book, The American Offensive: Dispatches from the Front, discusses at length the intellectual and moral corruption that pervades much of the humanities and liberal arts in the contemporary academy.

The examples of the corruption are legion. Recently, at San Francisco State University, a white student, Cory Goldstein, was accosted, harangued, and assaulted by a black woman—a university employee—for…wearing dreadlocks.


Evidently, Goldstein “micro-aggressed” against this woman specifically and blacks generally, for he is guilty of “cultural appropriation,” of appropriating a hair style that is distinctive of “black culture.”

“Micro-aggressions,” “cultural appropriation”—these are just some of the terms of the esoteric insider-speak to which college students are daily exposed courtesy of their professors.

To repeat, college students are taught to view their experiences in terms of the template of grievance imposed upon them by their instructors.

In a sane world, a world within which people hadn’t forgotten that the university is an institution whose raison d’etre has been the promotion of Western civilization, the ideological abuses to which the academic world has been subjected would constitute nothing less than an epic scandal.


In a sane world, taxpayers wouldn’t part with one red cent to subsidize this perversion of the university’s historic mission.

But we’re not living in a sane world.

Recently, Charles Murray—long-time scholar and co-author of The Bell Curve, a study of IQ and its practical implications that was published over 20 years ago—was invited to speak at Virginia Tech University. When, however, certain students got wind of this information, they demanded that the university disinvite him.

Black and white leftist student activists issued a statement in which they charge Murray with being a “social Darwinist” and an agent of “hate” and “prejudice:”


“At the time when rising racism, misogyny and anti-intellectualism have moved to the forefront of our national consciousness,” the statement reads, “there is no better place than a college campus from which to focus our efforts against the voices of prejudice and hate [.]”

Murray’s “social Darwinist take on intelligence, ability and morality—and his assertion of the inherent inferiority of non-whites and women—do nothing but promote a white supremacist agenda, cast in the guise of ‘scientific discourse.’”

Containing as it does all of the vapid, but emotionally-charged and politically effective, buzzwords—“racism,” “misogyny,” “prejudice,” “hate,” “social Darwinist,” “white supremacist”—this statement, besides being poorly written, is a classic textbook example of precisely the sort of “anti-intellectualism” of which it convicts Murray.


Yet it is no less insubstantial and ideologically-driven than the statement issued by the faculty of the Africana Studies Program. The latter accused Murray of being “engaged in a mission to use discredited pseudoscience to perpetuate the subordination of people of African descent, Latino/as, Native American Indians, the poor, women and the disabled.”

Murray’s thoughts served to promote a narrative that promised to “visit violence upon marginalized populations—recalling the history of forced sterilization, unjust institutionalization and incarceration, and denial of basic human rights.”

Comparison of these two statements, one by students, the other by faculty, is telling in that it underscores what critics of the contemporary university have been saying for far too long:


While there is indeed much learning that occurs in our institutions of higher learning, far too little of it is higher learning.

Students, that is, are learning from their professors how to become leftist ideologues.

They’re learning that “the personal is political” and, as such, both that every aspect of life is politicized and that it must be politicized in the image of their ideology.

Unfortunately, though, they are not learning how to think.

And if the statement by the faculty of the Africana Studies Program is any indication, students aren’t learning how to think because at least some of the faculty isn’t up to the task of teaching them.

The faculty statement at Virginia Tech is indistinguishable from that of the students insofar as it consists of such stock terms in vogue as “subordination” and “marginalized populations.” Moreover, like that of their student counterparts, faculty too lambast Murray’s work as “pseudoscience”—even though, like their students, you can bet dollars to donuts that none of them have ever so much as thought to read any of Murray’s scholarship, much less have they read The Bell Curve.


In an institution devoted to education, instead of political activism, neither faculty nor students would think to regurgitate fallacy-ridden canned statements and uninformed ad hominem attacks against scholars with whom they disagree. Rather, at an institution of higher learning, both faculty and students would know a thing or two about how to make cogent arguments to substantiate their views, and they would welcome opportunities to genuinely listen to and critically engage the exponents of those positions that they question.

But demonizing one’s opponents with a little abusive language jammed in between bumper sticker slogans is so much easier than conversing with them. It’s easier in that it requires less time, less knowledge, and a whole lot less courage: There’s no better way to immunize one’s own beliefs against criticism.


As I and others have been contending, the corruption of academia is systemic. It isn’t just the faculty and student statements at Virginia Tech that reveal this. The administration as well issued a statement that illustrates the groupthink.

Tim Sands, the president of the school, released an “open letter” to the school community. To his credit, he refused to rescind the invitation to Murray. Yet he referred to Murray’s work (particularly in The Bell Curve) as “largely discredited” and “a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.”


“Largely discredited” [read: pseudoscience]; “flawed…theory;” “fascism,” “racism,” “eugenics”: This could’ve easily been written any of Virginia Tech’s student activists.

Murray replied, claiming that President Sands was “unfamiliar either with the actual content of The Bell Curve” or “with the state of knowledge in psychometrics.”

My guess is that, like his students and faculty, Sands was unfamiliar with both.





The Young Messiah: A Response to its Critics

posted by Jack Kerwick

The Young Messiah (TYM) is a film at once entertaining and endearing. An admittedly fictionalized imagining of Jesus as a seven year-old boy, this movie’s treatment of its subject matter is eminently respectful.

Not everyone feels this way, however.

Dave Armstrong, a “professional Catholic apologist,” concedes in Patheos that “there are several aspects of [the] development of the human knowledge of Jesus…that are legitimate and perfectly orthodox [.]” It is, though, unorthodox and, hence, illegitimate to depict Christ as “growing into… awareness” of His identity, for the Church has affirmed for centuries that, from conception, Jesus knew that He was God (italics added).


Armstrong quotes Neil Madden who, writing at Conservative Review, makes the following remark:

“’The Young Messiah’” depicts Mary and Joseph as having more knowledge about Jesus’s true nature than He does. This is a problem. If Jesus was always God, begotten and not made, surely wouldn’t an omnipotent God know who he was as he was learning and growing in preparation for His mission here on Earth?”

Though Armstrong doesn’t seem to notice it, he and Madden are actually making two distinct points. Armstrong’s point is that Jesus, in His humanity, knew that He was God from the time that He was conceived. Madden, on the other hand, refers to Jesus in His divinity.

Doubtless, this controversy stems from nothing less than the mystery of the uniquely Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, the doctrine that God became a human being in Jesus: Christ is “true God and true man,” fully divine and fully human.


Two replies to TYM’s critics are in the coming.

First, if Neil Madden is correct that Jesus, being “an omnipotent God” must have always known His own identity “as he was learning and growing in preparation for His mission here on Earth,” then there would’ve been no “learning and growing in preparation” for that mission, for “an omnipotent God” would’ve had already known all that could be known about everything and anything.

On the other hand, if the “omnipotence” of Christ in His divinity is compatible with Christ in His humanity coming to learn and grow in some matters, then it is, in principle, compatible with Christ as fully human coming to learn and grow in all matters.


Secondly, unlike Madden, Armstrong alludes to Christ in His humanity, Christ at conception. Yet even here it is a mistake to think that if Christ knew from conception that He was God that He could not have grown into an awareness of His identity.

The two propositions do not necessarily contradict one another—as long as “knowledge” isn’t construed in an unduly shallow sense.

From at least the time of Plato throughout the centuries until Freud and beyond, a great many thinkers (and non-thinkers alike) have been of the mind that knowledge can be explicit and implicit, conscious and unconscious. Examples abound to suggest that this position has something going for it.

Take, for instance, what is known as “the principle of non-contradiction,” the principle that a thing can’t be and not be in the same respect and at the same time, that “(A) and (non-A)” must be false. Though most people outside of philosophy and logic classes have never heard of this principle, everyone knows it, for it is the most fundamental law of all thought.


Students must “grow into an awareness” of the principle of non-contradiction. And yet they’ve known it all of their lives.

If knowing could consist in human subjects growing into an awareness of (at least some of) what they already implicitly know, then how much more fitting would such an approach be regarding the God-Man? Consider: As God, Christ would had to have known all things from eternity. As a man, Christ would have to have grown and developed like all humans—even if that knowledge was already in Him from conception.

In conclusion, TYM’s portrayal of Jesus as learning His divine identity from Joseph and Mary is compatible with the position that, in His divinity, He always knew His identity. It’s also compatible with the idea that Christ, in His humanity, knew His identity from conception.


The only position that the thesis of TYM obviously contradicts is the thesis that Jesus, in His humanity, or from conception, was fully conscious of his divine nature, for if this thesis was true, then it would’ve indeed been logically impossible for Jesus to have grown into a consciousness of His identity.

The Young Messiah doesn’t deviate at all from theological orthodoxy when it comes to the question of Jesus’s knowledge of His own divine identity.





An “anti-Establishment” Candidate? The Real Ted Cruz

posted by Jack Kerwick

Contrary to what he and his boosters in some quarters of talk radio would have us think, Ted Cruz is most definitely not a Washington “outsider” or “anti-Establishment” candidate.

For years, until as recently as 2013, Cruz, alongside such insiders as George W. Bush, advocated on behalf of legalizing the country’s millions of illegal immigrants.

And though he and his defenders would have us believe otherwise, most Americans know that legalization, being the first step, as it were, to citizenship, is indeed amnesty.


It is doubtless because Cruz wanted as badly as anyone to bring illegals “out of the shadows” that accounts for why, in spite of his self-styling to the contrary, he left it to Jeff Sessions (who, not incidentally, has endorsed Trump) to lead the fight against the Gang of Eight.

In the early 2000’s, Cruz joined the board of HAPI, an organization comprised of “conservative” Hispanics interested in advancing a “pro-immigration” agenda. HAPI worked closely with the Bush administration. Every proposal included legalization. In fact, among the policies that Cruz and his colleagues at HAPI supported was John McCain’s and Ted Kennedy’s “immigration reform” act of 2006!


Robert De Posada, a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and a founder of the “Latino Coalition,” meets Cruz’s current protestations that he never supported legalization in principle, but only as a strategy to derail the Gang of Eight’s plans, with incredulity. “It’s just a flat out lie. Period. There’s just no truth behind it.”

The truth of the matter is that Trump entered the race and revealed to all with ears to hear that Americans generally and GOP voters in particular are outraged over the American Last immigration policy that Democrats and Republicans have been pushing for decades. Amnesty—i.e. any arrangement that, in one way or the other, allows illegals to reap the privileges allotted to those with legal status and citizenship—is woefully unpopular.


Cruz witnessed Trump’s meteoric rise over his stance on this issue and recalibrated accordingly.

The Texas senator had never been the hard-liner against amnesty that he would now have us believe that he is.

Yet support for amnesty is hardly the only position that Cruz has shared in common with his comrades in the neocon-GOP/Democrat-progressive Washington axis. Cruz has been supportive as well of the foreign policy vision of the regime.

For example, Cruz purports to reject “nation-building”—but so too does every other politician, for “nation-building” is to foreign policy what “welfare” is to domestic policy. Remember, even the man who set out to democratize the Middle East called for “a more humble foreign policy” when he campaigned for the presidency in 2000. In reality, Cruz is every bit as much a fan of the idealism of “American Exceptionalism” as is anyone.


As The National Interest notes, Cruz’s speeches on foreign policy are replete with the exactly the kind of abstract idealistic generalities—“human rights,” “fundamental values,” “the hope that every person may have to live in freedom,” etc.—that “conservatives have been fighting for centuries.”

Nor is this just rhetoric, for Cruz would refuse to communicate at all with Iran until it unequivocally affirms “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state”—a standard of which even our Arab alliesexpressed rejection.” And he argued for drawing Ukraine into an equal alliance with the Western powers of NATO—even though a country as poor and corrupt as Ukraine couldn’t possible carry its share of the burdens and responsibilities that member states are expected to assume.


Cruz decries “New York values,” which he identifies with support for abortion, “gay marriage,” and “focus on money and the media.” All the while, some of his biggest backers are Wall Street financiers. The chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, which spotted Cruz and his wife a considerable loan, had won an award from the “Human Rights Campaign” for his tireless work in advancing “marriage equality.”

Goldman Sachs, in the words of one left-leaning publication, had been a “driving force on influential Wall Street for LGBT equality.”


Evidently, Cruz’s conscience was no more conflicted over accepting resources from this embodiment of New York values than it was conflicted over accepting resources from two billionaire gay hoteliers—and proponents of marijuana legalization—who held a reception for him last spring. During the event, Cruz not once expressed his opposition to “gay marriage.” Moreover, he borrowed a move from the old tried and true GOP playbook and bucked the issue altogether by invoking “states’ rights:” marriage, he said, is a thing best left to the states to resolve on their own terms.


When word got out about the event, a Cruz aide expressed regret to CBS about the campaign’s choice of venue.

As for abortion, even as Cruz blasts Donald Trump for the latter’s assertion that Planned Parenthood does some good, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Cruz, who has been in the US senate for six years, only began calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood after it came to light that the country’s largest abortion provider traded in baby parts.


In other words, Cruz said nothing all of this time as the taxpayer was forced to subsidize PP’s abortion services. Yet what’s worse, the trading of the bodily members of deceased human beings or the killing of those humans?

To hear such Cruz boosters as Mark Levin tell it, Cruz is even more despised by the media and “the Establishment” as is Trump. There’s no end to the spin. Perhaps this explains why such neoconservative Republican establishment organs as National Review, which dedicated an entire issue to the end of stopping Trump, not only has done no such thing regarding Cruz; it has actually endorsed Cruz.


So too have such paradigmatic Establishment figures as Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham endorsed Cruz.

It’s also worth noting that NR, Bush, and Graham all gave one and the same reason for their support of Cruz: He’s the best hope of stopping Trump.








Suffering Christians in Nigeria

posted by Jack Kerwick

Roman Catholics throughout the world are in the midst of the season of Lent.

Lent occurs over the six weeks stretching between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. It is recognized by Catholics as a season of renewal, a time for Christians to repent of their sins and draw nearer to God.

And while prayer is essential to renewing one’s relationship with one’s Creator, Sustainer, and Savior, unless prayer is accompanied by the love of one’s neighbors, it is in vain.

There are two things that every Christian knows: (1) The love of neighbor transcends any and every boundary that human weakness—human sin—disposes us to draw; and (2) This agape (highest form of love) can be expressed in any number of ways.

These facts considered, Christians in America—particularly during this Holy Season—should bear in mind the plight of their brothers and sisters in the faith around the globe who are made daily to endure persecution of a kind that few of us can scarcely conceive.


The victims are men, women, and children to whom we are now and probably always will be strangers. They are almost always people of color, not infrequently (but by no stretch invariably) Africans and Middle Easterners.

And most (but not all) of the time, their persecutors are Muslims.

As black multimillionaires boycott the Oscars for Hollywood’s failure to nominate blacks for this most prestigious of its awards; as black and white agitators in the “Black Lives Matter” movement and among the Democrat Party’s presidential candidates continue to bemoan “systemic ‘racism’” in America; as the History Channel remakes the plagiarist Alex Haley’s Roots; and as Islamic activists bemoan such “Islamophobic” policies as “profiling” passengers boarding airplanes, black African Christians are regularly enslaved, beaten, separated from their families and murdered—usually by African Muslims.


Yet not a peep do we hear from Westerners who decry “racism” and religious bigotry as the most egregious of evils.

Open Doors, a site committed to serving oppressed Christians wherever they may be, shares stories of the victims of the Islamic militant group Boko Haram. The latter has been especially cancerous for the residents of Nigeria.

In April of 2014, the world watched as Michele Obama launched her “hashtag” campaign against Boko Haram when the thugs abducted 276 school girls from their secondary school in Chibok in Borno State. Chibok is an essentially Christian village. On May 5, less than one month after the kidnappings, Boko Haram’s leader, Abubakar Shekau, made a video in which he acknowledged that the girls were targeted precisely because they were not Christian: “The girls that have not accepted Islam, they are now gathered in numbers” but “treated…well the way the Prophet Muhammad treated the infidels he seized.”


He added: “Slavery is allowed in my religion, and I shall capture people and make them slaves.”

The girls shouldn’t have been in school to begin with, Shekau insisted, for as long as they are at least nine years of age, they are suitable for marriage.

Open Doors has touched base with the father of one of the Chibok girls. The man’s name is James. James’ “heart aches every day” for his daughter, yet he continues to pray for her safe return.

Lydia survived one of the random bomb attacks that Boko Haram launched in Gobe State (Nigeria). Open Doors assures us that, “miraculously, amidst such a nightmare, she still has sure hope in the Lord.”


There’s also Esther. Open Doors reports: “At the hands of Boko Haram, she has now become a widow. Her husband would not deny Jesus, even to the point of death, and that brings her joy when her mourning is overwhelming.”

Things have only gotten worse for these beleaguered people.

In just one year, from 2014-2015, the rate of Muslim-on-Christian murder has risen by 62 percent in Nigeria. In 2014, Open Doors recorded 2,484 murders and 108 attacks on churches. In 2015, however, it determined that there were at least 4,028 murders and 198 church attacks.

Open Doors joined with the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) to conduct a report on the violence. According to “a partner director for West Africa,” the report—“Crushed but not defeated, the impact of persistent violence on the church in northern Nigeria”—reveals that “the extent and impact of the persistent violence on the church…is much more serious than previously expected.”


This may come as a surprise to Westerners who would love to believe that only a small handful of aberrant or heterodox Muslims—“extremists,” as Barack Obama calls them—is responsible for the infamous violence perpetrated in the name of Allah, but this report also notes that even if Boko Haram was destroyed tomorrow, the threat to Christians would persist.

For starters, the 30 million or so Christians in the region “have suffered marginalization and discrimination as well as targeted violence” for several decades: This oppression wasn’t born with the relatively recent rise of Boko Haram.

Nor will it end with the ending of the terrorist outfit. “Once Boko Haram is defeated,” comments the West African partner director (who, for obvious reasons, wished to remain anonymous), “the problem will not be solved.” The director explains: “Christians living under Sharia law are facing discrimination and marginalization and have limited to no access to federal rights.”


The report on the persecution of the northern Nigerian church identifies three principal sources of the epidemic to which it speaks—and Boko Haram is only one of them. The other two are the Muslim Fulani herdsmen and “the Muslim religious and political elite that dominates government in norther Nigeria.”

This Lenten season, and every season, as the racial and religious-grievance mongers of the Racism-Industrial-Complex here at home seek out increasingly incredible instances of bigotry, Christians and all decent people should muster the courage to speak for real victims of evil.

Some of those real victims are Christian men, women, and children in places like Nigeria.


Previous Posts

The Fake Morality of Political Correctness vs. The Real Thing
That a senator from Vermont, a 74 year-old man who has spent his professional existence on the taxpayer’s dime and who is a self-avowed “socialist,” has managed to become an exceptionally popular Democrat presidential contestant is ...

posted 9:33:02am Apr. 29, 2016 | read full post »

Gary Johnson: A Free Trade Bernie Sanders?
Another insightful essay by guest blogger, Myron Pauli: I’ve never limited myself to Republican and Democratic nominees since I cast my first Presidential vote writing in Barry Goldwater in 1972. No regrets on rejecting the decent but ...

posted 9:37:46pm Apr. 21, 2016 | read full post »

Missing "Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism"
George Hawley, a professor of political science at the University of Alabama, supplies an invaluable service to students of American politics with his recently published book, Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism. All too rarely do we ...

posted 4:22:29pm Apr. 13, 2016 | read full post »

Groupthink in Academia
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently featured an article lamenting the lack of “diversity” in my discipline. Philosophy, so goes the article, just hasn’t been welcoming toward minorities and women. Thankfully, such enlightened ...

posted 9:50:04pm Apr. 08, 2016 | read full post »

Systemic Ideological Bias in Higher Ed
Among the variety of other topics that it explores, my book, The American Offensive: Dispatches from the Front, discusses at length the intellectual and moral corruption that pervades much of the humanities and liberal arts in the contemporary ...

posted 9:47:43pm Apr. 08, 2016 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.