Why is it that China sends its kids to college in America? Is it because colleges are a socialist’s “shining city upon a hill?”

As a parent of two, one a college grad and the other a senior, their education began years ago at home, understanding Western education’s hard left indoctrination was and is a travesty, both at private and public schools.

The so-called “educated” do not understand my views because they do not read them. They are too ignorant to consider that they just might end up being wrong. That someone disagrees with them shocks their system. And here you have former WSJ columnist Brett Stephens writing for the NYT with his ignorant opinion, as pointed out by Matt Taibbi:

From Bret Stephens in the New York Times: 

It’s too bad that Kirk, raised in a Chicago suburb, didn’t attend the University of Chicago. It wouldn’t have hurt getting thrashed in a political debate by smarter peers. Or learning to appreciate the power and moral weight of views he didn’t share. Or recognizing that the true Western tradition lies more in its skepticism than in its certitude.

It’s too bad Bret Stephens never debated Charlie Kirk. He’d have had to defend the idea that students at places like the University of Chicago are not only “smarter” than ignorant red-staters (and students at schools like Cambridge), but more schooled in the “Western tradition” of “skepticism,” as opposed to “certitude.”

Does Stephens mean currently? If so, that’s rich. The cultural schism now widening under all of us in America has surely been caused at least in part by a shift in the attitudes of the very people Stephens calls “the greatest scholars.” Professors abandon skepticism forcertitude in a range of hot-button issues, including a conspicuous one that may have had an impact on Kirk’s murder, transgender ideology.

And “smarter”? Stephens needs a fresh look at what passes for instruction and re-examine whether students are really being taught to think better. He should ask if it’s not instead true that institutional America is and has been systematically ripping off its young, a question Kirk threw at students everywhere, often with devastating results. It’s not surprising that scenes of kids who casually admit they “hate books” but were welcomed to pay tuition anyway haven’t made too many of the “Kirk’s greatest misdeeds” reels currently circulating:

This major plank of Kirk’s traveling-debate act is almost never mentioned in mainstream press rundowns of his views. Press accounts focus on alleged bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny. However, Kirk’s schtick as a non-college graduate moving from town to town doing verbal battle with ostensibly enlightened clientele of higher education had a key subtext: college embarrasses its customers. 

Action Line: Charlie Kirk was dangerous to the establishment because he exposed the travesty that was happening on America’s campuses. Now they must reckon with his power as a martyr to the cause of free speech and Western values. The dedication Kirk had to those causes isn’t something you can teach at school.

Originally posted on Your Survival Guy.