Our educators, based and trained in our universities, have adopted an ideology, a faith, contrary to the values and will of the general public, the citizens who pay their salaries and give jobs to their graduates. This ideology shapes the thoughts of everyone who successfully completes university: teachers, social workers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, journalists, government bureaucrats, politicians, and, increasingly, scientists and engineers. These graduates then go on to impose this ideology on the institutions they control, irrespective of what the public believes and wishes.
This ideology is called “social justice,” and divides up our society into “privileged oppressors,” such as whites and Asians, men, heterosexuals, Christians and Jews, and “oppressed victims,” such as people of colour (except East Asians), females, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals, and Muslims. In this scheme, we are no longer individuals with wishes and hopes, qualities and achievements, but ciphers in a category, and to be treated according to that category.
Allegedly, the “privileged oppressors” have unfairly taken away status and material benefits from the “oppressed victims,” enjoying their ill-gotten gains. This injustice is to be corrected by “social justice,” which involves reducing the “privileged oppressors” and raising the “oppressed victims.” To implement “social justice,” members of the “oppressed victim” categories are to be given special favours and benefits, special preferences, while members of the “privileged oppressors” categories are to be denied benefits, viewed with antipathy and aversion, and rejected. These measures are often taken under the guise of “diversity,” admitting and supporting members of preferred “underrepresented minorities,” while blocking and rejecting others. The majority of people, supposedly given weight and respect in a democracy, are cast in the “social justice” scheme as villains who deserve no consideration.
The rationale for racial and gender preferences is that certain minorities face bigotry and discrimination, and that is why they are underrepresented in universities and elsewhere in relation to their percentage of the general population. But this is assumed, and never demonstrated with evidence. There are many reasons to question this explanation for underrepresentation, not least the fact that other unpopular minorities are overrepresented in universities and professions in relation to their percentage of the population.
The result is that universalistic principles which require the same rules, criteria, and standards for all are rejected and revoked. Potential, merit, and achievement as criteria for recruitment and promotion have been rejected by universities in favour of race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. The idea of “fairness” is no longer based on treating all individuals the same; instead, people are treated differently according to the category they belong to.
This philosophy and strategy has been implemented in the U.S. for many decades under the label “affirmative action,” which in practice has meant official preferences for black and Hispanics. (Ironically, President Kennedy’s declaration of “affirmative action” required that race not be taken into account in hiring.) In Canada, such preferences are mandated for “visible minorities” and members of “First Nations” Indigenes.
Gender equality mandates always require an increase in the number of females when females are fewer than 50%, but gender balance requirements are deemed null and void when females make up a majority or large majority and men are in the minority. Homo-, bi-, and transsexuals are also preferred, and offered special benefits. Initiatives are currently in the works to privilege the homeless, illiterate, and mentally ill in university admissions and hiring. Universities in North America are the institutions most “woke” to social injustice, as they define it. They have vigorously and relentlessly engaged in “reverse” discrimination, discrimination in favour of preferred minorities and genders.
Even where racial preferences have been forbidden by public referendum, as in California, where a State Constitutional Amendment to this effect was passed, universities have worked around the rules, using characteristics correlated with race, to insure reverse discrimination “social justice” admissions and hiring. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are currently in court defending themselves against accusations of discrimination against high-achieving Asians and whites.
What does the public think of racial and gender preferences? The American public, of all races and genders, strongly opposes it. According to a 2019 Pew poll, 73% of American adults say that race should not be a factor in university admissions; 81% said that gender should not be a factor in university admissions. A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree that race and gender should not be a factor considered. (There is no comparable data on Canadian opinion.)
So, universities, and some government policies dictating “diversity,” fly in the face of the public will. But it is much worse than rejecting what the public wishes, because universities go on indoctrinating its students, and selecting its professors and administrators only among the sufficiently “woke” to the paramount importance of “social justice.” Our school teachers, having been formed almost entirely by radical schools of education, now orient their teaching with “social justice” ideology, indoctrinating the children under their care with the ideology.
Canadian and American children are taught that the histories of their racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and Islamophobic countries consist of unending sequences of atrocities committed against minorities, that evil capitalism has brought nothing but greed, exploitation, and inequality, that whites and men have never done anything good, and have stolen everything they have from others, and that their countries have no redeeming features.
Canadian children are taught that the evil founders of their country were no more than murderers of Indigenous natives, and that their statues should be torn down. American children are taught that slavery was invented in America (never mind that it has existed throughout history all around the world), that the slave-holding founding fathers were criminals, that America is uniquely evil, and that the Constitution is invalid because it was composed by slave owners.
It is highly unfortunate, and counter-productive, that schools and universities have become the enemies of Canadian and American values. Our “educators” spew poison, tricked out in long words and displays of “virtue.” They have abandoned their mandated purpose, rejecting the quest for knowledge in favour of neo-marxist ideology and propaganda.
View the version with footnotes here: EF55AreEducatorsEnemiesofthePeopleSalzman
