Posted on 07/18/2005 5:33:24 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
Frustrated by conservative activism on college campuses, the Left has unveiled secret weapons to counter our Ann Coulters and Ben Steins: Ashley Olsen and Oprah Winfrey. Keisha Senter, speakers' bureau coordinator for Campus Progress, introduced the group’s newest stars at its recent and first-ever national student conference.
Campus Progress, a project of billionaire George Soros’s Center for American Progress (CAP), seeks to “empower a new generation of progressive leaders.” Leftist organizers admit to being overwhelmed on the college front by groups such as the Young America’s Foundation, even though colleges and universities have been propagating liberalism for decades.
According to CAP’s campus programs director Ben Hubbard, “A national effort to work with students on the substance, intellectual foundation, and communication of progressive ideas is needed.” With the realization that food-throwing doesn’t win debates, as was demonstrated by certain assailants of Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, and David Horowitz earlier this academic year, leftists have finally organized a conference to discuss ideas — or so is their spin.
For the past 30 years on college campuses, the Left has been regurgitating concepts that do not work: socialist, pacifist, redistributionist…you get the tired old idea. Instead of injecting some fresh thinking into the young left-activist bloodstream, panelists at Campus Progress’s national student conference rehashed big-government policies, drew ridiculous parallels, and conveyed embarrassing talking points.
Moderator and former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers asked a panel to define progressive values. Paul Begala, host of CNN’s Crossfire, told of the value of “progressive patriotism.” He graciously went on to elaborate using an analogy: “Cain said, ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’ ‘You bet your ass,’ God said.” Begala continued by saying that Republicans reject his celestial wisdom and instead come from the mindset: “I’m going to get mine — screw you!” Another panelist, Thomas Frank, the author of What’s the Matter with Kansas?, said progressive values are “freedom plus groceries.” Heather McGhee, economic-policy analyst with Demos — a left-wing public-policy group — said progressives value “shared prosperity.” Students seeking guidance were given socialist solutions, which are no longer charming — not even in Russia.
At universities, conservatives are no stranger to being called "Nazis." Thomas Frank decided to keep that spirit alive. According to him, “They [Republicans] didn’t have any problem with Hitler, other than the fact that they thought he rocked.”
One young progressive asked how to campaign in the suburbs. He was not given an answer, but a specious sound bite. It’s difficult to campaign in those areas, said Ruy Teixeira, author of The Emerging Democratic Majority. “They are not our base — the white married couples who moved away from the cities to get away from minorities and smog.”
David Halperin, senior adviser for Howard Dean’s presidential bid and the conference coordinator, bemoans the millions of dollars having been spent instigating conservative activism on college campuses. He told the Washington Post that “We’ve been on the defensive for 25 years.” Yet he and other liberals routinely miss the fact that groups such as Campus Progress are wholly unnecessary. The counterpart to organizations such as the Young America’s Foundation is the university itself.
Schools habitually offer courses in “ethnic studies,” “queer studies,” “gender studies” and have set up institutions such as multicultural student unions and women’s centers to spread liberalism under the rubric of tolerance and diversity. It’s a canard to say that liberalism is not embedded in the university, as Campus Progress purports. Schools don’t have courses on “Conservatism and American History” and surely would never invite Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas to speak at commencement, but have allowed Wesley Clark and Thomas Friedman.
It’s not the lack of resources, but the tactics used and ideas professed that cause student apathy toward progressive activism. The Left’s routine support for divisive concepts such as racial preferences, the banning of ROTC recruiters from campuses, and their widespread commitment to enforcing political correctness will keep them as second-rate activists. Soros’s millions will not help.
Liberals had their chance at this conference to discuss something original. Unfortunately, they took the occasion to cast aspersions on conservatism with empty, dubious, and hateful rhetoric.
Can't say it would be only one-third, but undoubtedly you're right, it would be substantially lower: the well-off families who can pay full price subsidize the poorer families through financial aid. I recall the average student on financial aid has about half of their bill covered by their aid. Seventy-five percent of the budget of my ala mater comes from tuition. That's another reason for the higher fees there: no direct state subsidy. This college, like most elite schools, makes an effort to ensure that money is not a barrier to attending the school, which is a large part of the reason for their high-tuition, high-financial aid set-up.
Another factor at work: I recall reading a few years ago of a Justice Department investigation into the tuition of elite colleges. Apparently, they were all setting their tuition to be the same. Possibly a case of collusion, but also people have the attitude that if it doesn't cost top-dollar, it can't be a top-drawer education. Colleges apparently were quick to use this to their advantage. (My ala mater has spent quite a bit of money on a building campaign, in part because their market research indicated that their standing in the market for highly selective colleges was in danger of eroding because their facilities needed upgrading.)
Thanks for the info.
Your latter reason is really the one they all give as to why they don't want to lower tuitions: it's a status thing, that if you tell a kid he's going to a school that "costs" $30,000, then "rebate" him $20,000 through aid, he's going to say, "Wow. I'm going to a top-notch school," as opposed to the school that charges him the (honest) amount of $10,000 at the outset, without aid. Same thing as in the jewelry stores that have "sales" . . . every week.
I can think of at least two options:
To their credit, elite colleges (the Ivy League and many others) do make sure that anyone who is academically deserving to attend are able to attend. I would hate to think that an academically deserving student were not able to go to such a college. So I would hope there were still scholarships based on academic merit if financial aid were somehow done away with.
Well, that doesn't seem to be the direction they are following, since many schools this week (UC? Ivy League?) said they were no longer using National Merit Scholarships to determine admissions (translation: too many whites and Asians getting in).
"Freiheit und Brot".
The slogan's been used before.
If you invested $300K at the age of 18 in a safe conservative mutual fund, you'd be able to retire comfortably by age 35.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.