Dude... if a democrat (or socialist, or communist, or anarchist or freaking any political party or person) did this I'd be pissed, at what point do we draw the line with politics and propaganda being forced down our throats? Seriously this is so dumb, why do I HAVE to feel like I must push my opposing political view simply to not be drowned by the sheer volume of shit this administration is pushing i hate it.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
69 points (96.0% liked)
Academia
1074 readers
15 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Thank you for showing me there is some sanity left on the right somewhere. I still can't get over the blatant ignoring of the fourth and fifth amendment. You know its funny I think about people sometimes saying an amendment if more important than the others because of the order they were put in but now im convinced the founding fathers ordered by what they expected the most controversial to be to least controversial. I can't believe 4 has been violated and in such a manner that is almost exactly the way it was inspired by red coats. ie - there is a criminal somewhere in your town so we are kicking in all the doors and grabbing everyone and everything till we find the them.
Technology and Complacency along with most people moving in vehicles turned 4th amendment into a joke.
Time to fight this was 20-30 years ago at this point best that can be done is damage control and self preservation
They don't have to do that. Most universities are overwhelmingly democratic and leftist outside of business and legal schools.
conservative viewpoints are very much a minority on most higher ed campuses. they were not 30 years ago. but in the 90s things really started to consolidate at a rapid pace. conservatives and conservative ideas were systemically removed from campus discourses in favor of explicit liberal/left agendas embraced by university admins, who were chasing grant dollars.
... what?
https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/history-student-activism-in-college/
https://time.com/6319108/conservative-universities/
https://www.goacta.org/news-item/a_left_wing_monopoly_on_campuses/
(Take note, these articles are not my beliefs, mere information found on the FIRST page of ddg. I have no idea where you got "90s things really started to consolidate at a rapid pace." Seems history says it was the 60s in American campuses.)
Accuses universities of brainwashing, offers funds to universities who will do their brand of brainwashing
That's how it has always been. Each side got their turn, the only difference now is that Trump exposed how shameless these dealing really are.
The liberal side is typically over-represented in universities because being exposed to education and differing world views is detrimental to conservative’s way of thinking.
the liberal sided is over represented because conservative viewpoints are systematically discriminated against in most universities.
just bringing them up for discussion is considered sacrilegious. as a grad student I would bring up conservative talking points sometimes in my political philosophy classes and people would socially shun me and call me names for suggesting that conservative viewpoints have any legitimacy whatsoever.
it's one thing to say you are open to differences... and another to be totally closed off to those differences in practice.
and FWIW I went to school int he early 2000s an then later again in the 2010s... and in the 2010s that is when a lot of this 'anti conservatism started. in the 2000s most people I met at uni were totally comfortable with 'conservative' ideas. for example, for a woman to just be a stay at home mom and that be a perfectly valid life. in 2000s nobody cared, but in 2010s all the sudden that became 'controversial' and if you argued a stay at home mom was a valid way for a woman to live her life, you were 'misogynistic'. I was frankly appalled that people thought this way. I noticed they generally were accepting of certain lifestyles and believes, but totally closed off/discriminatory/hostile to others.
You’re giving us a sample size of one which doesn’t really say anything.
That one person could have an off putting personality or subscribe to the more cultural war aspect of modern conservatism which doesn’t go well if you’re talking to members of minority groups.
Both sides use federal cash flows to stuff these "institutions"
Ideology is secondary, this is first and foremost about ruling regime's people getting the money and positions.
pretty much.
the asian case against Harvard was a bunch of rich asians being pissed they didn't get more 'slots' at an ivy league school as their ticket to money and power. they had to 'settle' for their kids going to schools one step down where they will still have plenty of access to power and money... but they just won't be the most 'elite'.
both sides are greedy power hungry bastards. they just swap who they blame for societies problems
Are you able to provide a source with liberals doing the same thing in their favor?
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/7/13/faculty-survey-political-leaning/
2% of the harvard faculty identify as conservative, and only 16% are moderate. it's a problem.
years ago it was more like 20% conservative, still a minority but way more representative of the general population.
some of my best professors were 'conservative' in my time at uni. In today's environment they'd have never been allowed to hired because they would have 'disqualifying' beliefs. That's messed up.
there is also systematic problem with these kinds of incredibly lopsided faculty environments that create a orthodoxy that is inherently problematic to have at an institution of inquiry and learning. exposure to different ideas allows you to challege such orthodoxy. I don't want anyone going to uni to be subject an orthodoxy.
Are you saying that Obama and Biden stacked the university’s hiring practices in favor of liberals?
Can you provide a source for this?
you need a source for a common practice?
search "federal research funding priorities by administration" will yield numerous articles and government reports on how funding gets handled by different presidents. each admin will fund what they want and put allies in place to get paid with that money.
As I said, the only difference here is that Trump is stating this shit out right publicly.
This is a classic grift and each administration gets its turn to milk it.
Examples:
Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top
States and school districts competed for funding based on implementing specific education reforms aligned with the Obama administration’s priorities.
Biden: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/ige/updates/advancement-stem-graduate-education-diversity
Grant proposals are often evaluated not only on scientific merit, but also on their potential to advance diversity and equity goals.
There is also private funding issues. Look at the funding of university-affiliated think tanks and research centers – many receive substantial donations from liberal foundations and individuals, such as the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and various family foundations.
Race to the Top isn’t binding funding to promoting liberal ideals and that second link is broken.
Race to the Top isn’t binding funding to promoting liberal ideals
The devil is in the grant process
Look into grants for special populations and which they skew
State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the selection criteria were:[3] Great teachers and leaders (138 total points) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points) Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points) State success factors (125 total points) Articulating state's education reform agenda and LEAs' participation in it (65 points) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points) Standards and assessments (70 total points) Developing and adopting common standards (40 points) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points) Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points) General selection criteria (55 total points) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points) Making education funding a priority (10 points) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (50 total points) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points) Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points) Data systems to support instruction (47 total points) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points) Using data to improve instruction (18 points) Accessing and using State data (5 points) In addition to the 485 possible points from the selection criteria above, applicants were assessed based on six priorities, including the prioritization of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education which is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.[3] Priority 1, absolute priority: comprehensive approach to education reform Priority 2, competitive preference priority: emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (This priority was worth 15 points, bringing the "selection criteria" total to 500 points) Priority 3, invitational priority: innovations for improving early learning outcomes Priority 4, invitational priority: expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems Priority 5, invitational priority: P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment Priority 6, invitational priority: school-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning The applications for Race to the Top were bolstered by local involvement: states were incentivized to get buy-in from school district superintendents and teacher unions; applications required signatures from the states' education chiefs, governors, and attorneys general in order to qualify.[3]
What’s your problem with this?
Personally i don't have a problem per se with "liberal" angles, but the entire program was a grift for obama admin and his crew.
Usage of specific consultants for grant writing and strategy.
Classic grifters like Pearson and McGraw-Hill
Tech contracting going to MSPs aligned with the Obama's team along with big tech contracts.
There were also consultants who trained teachers and school admins.
Results were at best dubious. But billions flowed to Obama's people.
Like i said above, ideology is secondary, this is about money flows.
Do you have anything that backs up your claims on the money flows?
Joanne Weiss, James Blew, Laura Schifter and Andrew Smarick careers among hundreds of others.
Look into Bellwether Education Partners and how much obama alumni ended up up grifing there.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning is another example.
I’m not sure what to look for do you have a source for your claims?
https://curbingcorruption.com/sector/higher-education/
I know you are being dense on purpose but for people who actually care to understand the topic.
My comment above specifically focused on issues of misappropriation of federal funds by insiders via corrupt contracting process with intermediary companies.
But corruption is systematic touches issues from sextortion to outright fake degrees for money.
There isn’t a single mention of any of the things from your previous comment in any of those links you sent.
Nothing 🤡
Political influence in definition of educational policy, priorities; bribes and political considerations in school district mapping, school locations, accreditation systems for educational professionals, etc.
PROCUREMENT
Bribes to influence procurement process including tender specifications; collusion among contractors; bribes, collusion and political considerations to influence the specifications of bids and the tender process.
BUDGET
Political influence and bribes in resource allocation; budget leakages, embezzlement and fraud in transfer of budgets: diversion of public into private accounts; embezzlement of funds raised by local NGOs and parent organizations
So if you accuse someone of murder a definition of homicide is proof?
You changing topics now.
I explained to you how corruption works within education and provided examples of people and companies that were affilaites with obama admin who specifically made money on rttt
These people will never be prosecuted due to being regime whores.
If you think spending billions of dollars on dubious programs that provide no benefit is fine. Good for you.
I call that corruption. It is corruption under Obama and it is still corruption under trump.
Getting pissed about trumps red herrings while ignoring the actual issue is a clown exercise which is how this entire discussion started.
If you got a counter point, I would like to hear it.
Do you find these dealign acceptable?
These people will never be prosecuted because they did nothing wrong.
That’s why Trump’s DOJ isn’t going after them.
Are you able to provide a source with liberals doing the same thing in their favor?
You haven’t been able to tie liberals pulling funding for universities saying things they don’t like.
You haven’t even been able to show the corruption you claim exists.
BOooOOOoTtTTTthHhHHH fuUcKiNg SiIiiIiiiDdDDDddeEeeSssSsss
voting is how you got here ;)
No, lack of education, including morons voting third party, is how we got here.
DNC Consensus building tactics, ✊
Putin propaganda ✊
pretty much. people really dislike the ugliness of Trump. But he's showing us how ugly most people really are.
So many people on the left/liberal are 100% OK with corruption, brainwashing etc, they claim to be against. As long as it's their version of it and not a conservative version of it.
Muhh team good, muhh daddy strong...
Your daddy bad, my daddy kick your daddy's ass
Cruz of american politics while billionaires robbing our bank accounts via corruption as such described in this thread.
i mean, it's always been that way more or less. in the 19th century it was slave owners robbing us until we had a civil war. then after that it was the gilded age until we had the great depression. etc.
only thing that will actually change things is another great social upheaval like a war or economic collapses, or both. you need the vast majority of people to suffer for them to actually want to change anything.
the current system still benefits too many people for their be any need for systematic change. the people in the top 10% of the economic bracket, myself included, benefit way too much from the current system.
but i can tell you that most of my economic peers are totally convinced they are not elites and not benefiting, and their rage is directed towards paying too much tax and being anti-growth.
I hate this country doesn't have built-in anti-corruption that works. It doesn't matter (on second thought, this makes no sense, of course, everything matters) they're actively trying to break everything. It matters that it wasn't protected adequately. He should have disappeared through a trap-door in the floor on day one.
Why won't universities teach our lies as truth!? - The state of conservatives in 2025.