It is easy to assume that the authors of Don’t Go To College: A Case For Revolution (2022) would be anti-intellectuals who never darkened a university’s doors and are jealous of anyone who did. Ah, but not so fast. Michael J. Robillard and Timothy J. Gordon were in the “belly of the beast” as students, and Mr. Robillard even taught at the University of Notre Dame, the University of Oxford, and the United States Naval Academy. Both men have PhDs, plus two Masters for Robillard and a Masters and Juris Doctor for Gordon. The latter, a devout Roman Catholic, recently taught in a Roman Catholic high school in his native California and even became the theology department chairman before running afoul of the “woke” totalitarians, who, for good measure, had him fired after he spoke out against the domestic terrorism running rampant in American cities during the summer of 2020.
These authors make a compelling case that university is unsuitable for some—by no means all—with rationales ranging from the practical to the “woke.” They note that university retards maturity by delaying such commitments as marriage, parenthood, permanent employment, and other adult responsibilities. And high tuition fees, augmented by room and board, books, and student loan costs create high debt burdens that supplement the difficulties for those who leave or finish university only to find themselves unemployed or underemployed and, as such, in a poor financial position to take on spousal and parental responsibilities.
Adding insult to injury, Robillard and Gordon also discuss the bubble-wrapping “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” that shield students from “offensive” speech and leave them ill-prepared for the adversity and challenges that await in the “real world.”
Unfortunately, their case against university attendance extends to the pernicious campus environments, starting, but, by no means ending, with campus “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) bureaucracies. Individual merit is of no consequence and subordinated to race, gender, “gender identity,” and sexual orientation. Did I forget anything? Oh yes, we can only achieve “equity”—translation: equality of outcome—if we abolish capitalism and Western civilization, which DEI enthusiasts claim to be “racist,” “white supremacist,” “colonialist,” “xenophobic,” “genocidal,” etc. In essence, we have Marxism through a group identity lens.
[REALTED: Two Views: Allan Bloom and Pop Culture]
Furthermore, this “leftist monoculture”—thank you, Julie Ponesse—extends to the professoriate. Indeed, the authors produce data supporting this claim, courtesy of a National Association of Scholars 2020 report showing Democrat—read: left-wing—professors outnumbering Republican—read: right-wing—counterparts in “leading [American] institutions of higher education” 9:1. The ratio increases to 11:1 for young professors, 16:1 for female professors, 42.2:1 for those in Anthropology faculties, and 26.8:1 for members of English departments. Hatred of Western civilization is a leitmotif with students likewise indoctrinated, or so the authors compellingly argue. No wonder so many students are “woke” by the time they leave university—and K to 12 didn’t exactly immunize them. Oh, the joys of “consciousness raising,” where students are indoctrinated in the “virtues” of DEI, globalism, rule by experts, fifteen-minute cities, and other “progressive” causes. By contrast, nationalism and grassroots localism are not to be tolerated.
It is not much better in the STEM fields where the authors tell us that “scientism”—which they define as the “Marxification of science”—has gained ground at the expense of science. They quote one professor who says math is “dominated by whiteness and racism” (p.54). And there are even scientists at universities who claim that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man, even though XX chromosomes cannot equal XY chromosomes. Last but by no means least, Robillard and Gordon reference Chinese communist penetration in the STEM fields, where PRC apologists are reportedly easy to find and often richly remunerated—hello, Charles Lieber.
What to do? Not everyone is interested in university but attends anyway despite a skilled labor shortage in America—equally evident in Canada. Indeed, the authors quote a Forbes article by Sarah Chamberlain where “[r]oads, highways, bridges, dams, harbors, water systems, and airports have been neglected or only marginally repaired in the last twenty years” (p.82).
As an aside, Canada and the United States have rich oil and natural gas reserves, and incoming President Trump’s “drill baby drill” pledge is encouraging. Now, it is incumbent upon us Canadians to find the presence of mind to replace our “watermelons” with a fossil fuel-friendly government, hopefully sooner rather than later. Then plumbers, pipe fitters, welders, etc., north of the border will be in even higher demand and will make good livings “in the patch,” with futures more secure and lucrative than many of the students pursuing university degrees that may not align with interests or aptitudes. Besides, two-year community college diplomas in the trades, plus lower annual tuition fees, mean substantially less student loan debt.
Additionally, even those seeking intellectual fulfillment and learning for its own sake may still circumvent university. Gordon and Robillard suggest picking an area of interest and doing a great deal of reading on one’s own time. This can be an overview or a specialization. Let’s say one chooses Western philosophy. Will it be a survey history or an in-depth study of one or two philosophers?
But while this is all well and good, others may need the formal structure of university to remain disciplined. Also, a degree is a documented intellectual achievement—unlike the informal learning cited above. Additionally, academic interests may germinate in university and become a lifelong passion—something that would never have been on one’s radar had he not attended university.
To their credit, the authors address this by agreeing that formally pursuing knowledge for its own sake is important to many but believe universities, on the whole, have abandoned their true purpose, specifically understanding the world by reading the great works of the Western canon, debating the great truths, and seeking intellectual and moral development, all of which may require the intellectually committed to read extensively beyond course syllabi. Robillard and Gordon also concede that such professions as medicine, engineering, and law require higher academic education.
[RELATED: First-Year College Reading: Almost No Reading Required]
But “woke” faculty are not let off the hook. Students are encouraged to challenge their professors’ arguments, write op-ed letters to the student newspaper, and become activists on campus. So far, so good, but we must take issue with the authors’ suggestion to impugn professors’ reputations by calling them anti-white racists or anti-Judeo Christian bigots, as petty name-calling subordinates rational counterargument to the baser instincts. And demanding they be harassed, intimidated, and/or fired violates their freedom of expression rights, thereby rendering the “anti-woke” no better than their “woke” cancel culture neo-Marxist adversaries. Here, we are reminded of the scene in Men With Brooms where “Juggernaut” asks one of his mates: “[d]o you really want to win this way?”
Robillard and Gordon are on more solid ground when they suggest turning the tables by criticizing the “woke” left’s icons, even for their personal failures. This can be accomplished without slandering their professors, but it is so much better if there is room for biting ridicule when criticizing the left’s icons. For example, Canadians —and even some Americans—are familiar with the joke about Justin Trudeau being Fidel Castro’s biological son—a cute touch given JT’s Marxist sensibilities and fawning fangirl adoration for the late Cuban despot. Yet more is the pity that the authors didn’t pick a better example than Martin Luther King and his alleged sexual indiscretions. Judging people “by the content of their character, not the color of their skin” makes Dr. King “the relic of bygone era” and no hero for the “woke.” After all, his quote might be closely intertwined with that beastly “Eurocentric” merit principle. Besides, why glorify the individual when people can be lionized or impugned based on their race, color, gender, or sexual orientation?!
By contrast, when it comes to attacking the “woke” left’s icons, there is no better bullseye than Karl Marx. He rarely took a bath, reeked to high heaven, had boils all over his body, had a “love child” with the family maid, used the n-word to describe a son-in-law, earned very little money, and was a chronic moocher. Then there was his Satanic poetry—Paul Kengor’s The Devil and Karl Marx (2020).
In summing up, it is impossible to agree with everybody about everything all the time, and Don’t Go To College is no exception. It is nevertheless a valuable contribution in the fight against left-wing “wokeness,” whether by avoiding university or by attending and pushing back against the dominant orthodoxy. After all, it is a historical fact that bullies keep pushing until there is resistance, which means a future even worse than our present if these aggressors aren’t nipped in the bud. Kudos to Robillard and Gordon for going against the current and standing for freedoms we have long taken for granted and too often seem unwilling to defend. They have tremendous courage.
Image: “Unintended Commentary” by MTSOfan on Flickr
