The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Eric Rasmusen Archive
Fire Professor Eric Rasmusen? Or Fire Provost Lauren Robel Instead?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I’ve taught economics at Indiana University for some twenty-five years (after earlier positions at UCLA, the University of Chicago’s Business School, and Yale Law School), punctuated by sabbatical years visiting the University of Tokyo Economics Department, Oxford’s Nuffield College, Harvard Law School, and the Harvard Economics Department. Lauren Robel is the Provost of Indiana University-Bloomington campus— a $1.7 billion enterprise— and she, too, has been here most of her career, as Professor of Law and Dean of the Law School. I am known in the academic world as a conservative; she is known as a liberal.

Last week, I was caught up in an Internet “cancelling” simply for posting a quote by someone else— Lance Welton, from an article in The Unz Review. “Geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness.” Welton’s article, “Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably,” was in turn referencing an Ed Dutton video entitled “Do Female Academics Reduce Male Per Capita Genius?”. The highly followed @SheRatesDogs account on Twitter posted a screenshot that got 2.5 million view s. The tweeterpeepers were after me. Of course, a quotation is not an endorsement of the quote, or of the article it was in, or of the article’s author, or of the magazine which published the article, or the nephew of the editor of the magazine which published the article, but it was concluded that Eric Rasmusen hates women.

Now, since the quotation discusses low agreeableness and conscientiousness in the context of males, it’s conceivable how misunderstanding it might make the reader think it was disparaging men. But how can it be construed as “Eric Rasmusen hates women”? In fact, it isn’t even really disparaging to men. To understand why, one needs to understand some concepts from academic psychology. Men and women have the same average IQ score, but men have higher variance, as they do on many characteristics. Higher variance means male IQ’s are more spread out, less bunched up at the middle levels around 100, so more men than women have very low IQ’s, and more men than women have very high IQ’s, but fewer men have average IQ’s. As a result there are more male geniuses. Also, note that hardly anyone is a genius— the proportion in the population is only 1 in 1,000 even by the most generous definition, and 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 by other definitions. So we aren’t talking about men and women in general.

That most geniuses are men is so clear from the data and so obvious to the common man that it wouldn’t be worth mentioning. What I found interesting was the idea that geniuses had low Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, words capitalized because they are technical terms, referring to numerical scores on two of the “Big Five” personality traits. (The other three are Openness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism.) Wikipedia puts it, “Low agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy,” and “Low conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability.”

Such subtleties are beyond people like the wokefolk, who aren’t careful readers, and beyond rags like The Washington Post, which aren’t careful writers. The Post went so far as to say that I was the author of the quote, and not just the quote but the entire essay, though they made a correction later after people pointed out they were denying Mr. Welton his due credit (which I am glad to cede to him).

Such subtleties were also beyond Provost Robel. People have called on her to fire me. She is a law professor and knows it would be unlawful to do that. She did, however, issue a proclamation. It started, “Professor Eric Rasmusen has, for many years, used his private social media accounts to disseminate his racist, sexist, and homophobic views…” She listed various political views she claims I hold, but which I actually don’t. (I do hold views she would probably find equally obnoxious, but she got her list wrong, as I explain elsewhere in my fisking reply to her memo.)

Since she knows she can’t fire me, she said, “We cannot, nor would we, fire Professor Rasmusen for his posts as a private citizen, as vile and stupid as they are, because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids us to do so. That is not a close call.” So far, so good, but shouldn’t “academic freedom” be mentioned too? I know law professors focus on constitutional law, but what about contract law? And if you’re in charge of a college, we’d hope academic freedom would come to mind, at least in your rhetoric.

Wouldn’t we prefer a Provost who defends the First Amendment and academic freedom, rather than treating them as unfortunate constraints? There is a deep problem here. How can one trust authority to someone who focuses on obeying only human law, not natural law— that is, someone who tries to stay within the letter of the First Amendment but doesn’t care about its spirit?

Prof. Brian Leiter
Prof. Brian Leiter

What should Provost Robel have said, in her immediate, time-pressured, response, and as a liberal but fair administrator? Leftwing professor Brian Leiter, a Nietzsche scholar at the University of Chicago Law School offers this as an example of a suitable if mundane statement in his blogpost, “Another Academic Administrator Who Doesn’t Understand Her Job”:

“Professor Eric Rasmusen of the Business School speaks only for himself, not for the University. The First Amendment protects his speech, whether or not the University or members of the public agree with it. The University will continue to insure that all faculty comply with anti-discrimination laws in the classroom.”

In fact, even an unprincipled administrator should value academic freedom, if not as a moral principle, then as a tool for acquiring and keeping good faculty. Let’s think about the Indiana University Provost’s job description:

The Office of the Provost oversees all academic units on the Bloomington campus and coordinates initiatives related to faculty research, creative activity, and professional development; diversity; sustainability; and student success and well-being. The provost promotes a campus environment of expansive inclusivity, rigorous intellectual inquiry, and compassionate engagement with the community in Bloomington and around the world.

From the same web page, let’s look at some other duties of the Provost:

• Energizing research and creative activity

  • Securing funding for the sciences and research in all fields
  • Recruiting and retaining top-quality faculty
  • Managing academic appointments, searches, tenure, and promotion
  • Leading the university’s globalization efforts
  • Overseeing the improvement of academic quality of the student body
  • Elevating the campus intellectual climate
  • Safeguarding and improving diversity, humanity, and accessibility

How about the first of these, “Energizing research and creative activity”? Clearly, there is potential benefit to society from geniuses, so perhaps research on the nature of “geniuses” could be relevant? How does condemning a professor who posts a topic for discussion encourage such “creative activity”?

“Recruiting and retaining top-quality faculty”? Is the Provost’s memo going to make coming to Indiana University more attractive to potential top-quality scholars?

“Elevating the campus intellectual climate.” From its ancient origins, the university has been about training our minds to pursue knowledge and truth together. IU’s very motto, much celebrated in 2019 because this is the University’s bicentennial, is lux et veritas, “light and truth.” Does condemning a professor for quoting someone else’s opinion elevate the campus intellectual climate? How about careless and undocumented falsification of a professor’s positions?

Finally, “Safeguarding and improving diversity, humanity, and accessibility”. Is diversity improved by punishing professors who are out of the mainstream? Diversity of thought is increasingly important for universities. More and more people are coming to regard universities as ideologically homogenous, unrepresentative of the diversity of their constituents, and unworthy of their time, attention, and money. Are they right about that?


Consider the specifics of my case as an example. The Provost says that “while she may not want Professor Rasmusen on campus, it was important to be frank with students about what the school could do,” and “Somebody with his views — should that person be teaching students? If that was the only question we had to answer, the answer in my mind would be pretty clear.” She thinks hiring me was a mistake. Ideology trumps everything else. I’m one of the better-known scholars at Indiana, even if I’m not good enough for, say, Harvard (I’ve only held visiting posts at places like Harvard and Yale, not permanent jobs). My credentials are good: I’ve written a book on game theory that has had a lot of influence; I’ve written 70 articles; I have Uni High, Yale, and MIT degrees— a perfect score on the LSAT— an Erdos number of 5, and so forth. The Provost said that she didn’t know of a single complaint filed against me for my teaching, a pretty good record if I’m really a wild-eyed extremist just itching to discriminate against some helpless student. Nonetheless, she thinks the danger is so great, despite complete lack of evidence, just from what she thinks is going on inside my head, that she’d rather Indiana University didn’t have on its faculty a well-known scholar who is the author of a leading textbook as well as numerous esoteric mathematical articles. Is this the way to make Indiana University great again?

Thus, don’t fire Professor Eric: fire Provost Lauren. The university’s best interests are not her priority. Ideology as more important than scholarship. Teaching quality is measured by political viewpoint. Lauren Robel should not be Provost; she should not be Dean; she should not be any kind of administrator at Indiana University.

I do not mean that IU should fire her completely. Lauren Robel has two titles: Provost, and Professor of Law. Even after being fired as Provost, she would still be Professor of Law, with tenure, and I do not think she should be fired from that job. It’s even customary for former administrators to keep an especially high salary when they return to being ordinary professors, as they often do. (For Lauren, that wouldn’t matter. One of her good points is she isn’t interested in money. I heard a rumor that when she became Dean of the Law School she was embarassed at how much they were going to pay her and didn’t want to take it.) Lauren Robel enjoys teaching, I know— she did a little teaching even as Provost and told me how much she enjoyed it. Her views may be reprehensible and vile, even loathsome, but I would trust her to grade conservative students fairly. I just don’t think she is suitable as Provost.

Will she be fired? Probably not. I’m not intending to use my Statehouse connections, which are slight in any case, and I don’t know any members of the Board of Trustees. A faculty uprising did unseat an Indiana University President some years ago. There was a mass meeting of the entire faculty, from all departments. What I said in that meeting applies here: only the Board of Trustees has the power the fire the President, and Trustees know that the faculty are always complaining about something or other, but what faculty can do is make a bit of noise to get the Trustees to investigate, and if there is really something wrong, they’ll find it. (I actually have an academic paper on that.)

Information and attracting attention are the key things. I recall a recent experience where I was on the fringes of an effort to unseat a corrupt megachurch pastor, James MacDonald of the Elgin, Illinois Harvest Bible Chapel. He was a good preacher, with sound doctrine, but greedy and tyrannical behind the scenes. I sent encouraging emails to two bloggers and a journalist who were under fire for criticizing Macdonald for his enormous concealed monetary compensation. Macdonald made the fatal error of suing them for defamation. They were apprehensive, worried whether their insurance would cover it and whether they might lose their houses. I told them they should be glad they’d been sued and under no circumstances should they allow MacDonald to drop his lawsuit. That’s because if it continued, they’d have the right to look at church documents relevant to their claims, they’d win the suit, and the court would probably even make Macdonald pay their attorney’s fees. I was so sure of this that I gave one of them $10,000 to help with legal fees (Note to Wokefolk looking for attack points: such a contribution is not tax deductible, but I didn’t deduct it). In the end, MacDonald was fired, and the church settled the case and paid all the legal fees. I said the blogger could keep the $10,000 anyway because he deserved it for all the angst he’d suffered over the years, but he sent it back and said I should use it to help somebody else.

What has this to do with Provost Robel? For starters, it shows how the executive of a big nonprofit who loses his cool can be brought down by little people. Little people should not be daunted. We do win sometimes. Hold firm, and you’ll get through it, and you’ll be doing the world a favor. Also, it shows that once you start a reform effort, unexpected things can happen, help you’d never expect (the Hand of God helping out? –- yes, folks—Providence.) In this case it was an audio clip obtained by Mancow Muller, a shock jock best known for Chicago’s Mancow’s Morning Madness. While Pastor Macdonald was chatting with someone after his own radio show, he started making crude jokes—but the mic was still on. He joked about planting porn on the computer of Christianity Today’s CEO and joked about how how maybe the journalist I was encouraging, Mrs. Julie Roys, was having an affair with the editor-in-chief. When the Church’s board of elders heard the radio show, that was the last straw. They fired Macdonald and cancelled his credentials as a pastor (I like the old phrase “defrocked him”.) To see an impressive Christian woman in action, and learn a bit about courage, take a look at Julie’s “David and Goliath” conference speech here:

Conversations are never as secret as we think them to be. If the Provost is saying bad things about me in meetings or phone conversations, making private claims as false as her public claims, I hope somebody records it and sends it to Mancow Muller. Indiana is a “one-party consent” state meaning only one of the parties in a meeting or phone call needs to know a recording is being made. If you’d like to help, think about that. Of course, my field is game theory, so one reason I’m saying this is that I expect the Provost to read it too, and consciousness of the danger will help her avoid temptation, an even better outcome. But I do think she needs to return to teaching.

So let me now answer my essay’s question:

Fire Provost Robel.


The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley School of Business or Indiana University.

Eric Rasmusen is Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory and Measuring Judicial Independence: The Political Economy of Judging in Japan (with J. Mark Ramseyer). More recently he has co-authored “Identity Politics and Organized Crime in Japan: The Impact of Targeted Subsidies on Burakumin Communities,” Coarse Grades,” “Concavifying the Quasi-Concave,” and “Law, Coercion, and Expression: A Review Essay on Frederick Schauer’s The Force of Law and Richard McAdams’s The Expressive Powers of Law.” Email: [email protected]

Source: J.Conv.An.

Hide 136 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. dearieme says:

    Golly, she’s an ugly lump. Is that why she hates men?

  2. Very awesome!!!! So glad we have an American version of J Peterson, and especially citing the Unz Review. This will mean more publicity for Unz and his awesome website (even though Walton wrote that originally at VDare).

    • Replies: @Richard B
  3. Biff says:

    More and more people are coming to regard universities as ideologically homogenous, unrepresentative of the diversity of their constituents, and unworthy of their time, attention, and money. Are they right about that?

    Right, and this is where you will find the idealistic bitches with sticks in their ass.

    • Replies: @Eric Rasmusen
  4. Speaking of “one-party consent” recording, I would recommend wearing or carrying a personal object with a hidden video camera to record your lectures, office hours, and possibly other public campus interactions to avoid false accusations. The radicalized percentage of leftist troublemakers on campus are probably sharpening their knives against you now, so lies and slander could be in their toolkit.

    Furthermore, if university or media figures publically attack you on the policy and values points you’ve raised, challenge them to a debate at an off-campus nearby location with private security to toss out genuine disrupters. If these figures refuse debate, then the silent majority will see that their cowardice is probably rooted in being wrong. If they agree, a truth warrior like you will open a can of intellectual whoop-ass on them.

    Thanks for not backing down one inch.

    • Agree: Realist
  5. Miro23 says:

    The provost promotes a campus environment of expansive inclusivity, rigorous intellectual inquiry…

    Not at all true so…

    Fire Provost Lauren. The university’s best interests are not her priority. Ideology as more important than scholarship. Teaching quality is measured by political viewpoint. Lauren Robel should not be Provost; she should not be Dean; she should not be any kind of administrator at Indiana University.

    Lauren Robel has two titles: Provost, and Professor of Law. Even after being fired as Provost, she would still be Professor of Law, with tenure.

    Firing this woman would be a good project – and a useful counterstrike against the SJW Antifa terrorists.

    • Replies: @old farta
  6. Anon[515] • Disclaimer says:

    Professor. Go and get SJWs always lie by Theodore Beale. Follow the steps. Under no circumstances apologise. Do not apologise. You are in the swarming, isolate, personalise stage etc. The number one rule is make the rubble bounce. Go on the offensive. It looks like you understand, but keep going and escalate.

    Don’t make the mistake of thinking there can be an accord with SJWs. If Robel is an SJW as a Provost she will be an SJW as a tenured professor of law. She will not rest now until you are destroyed.

    Don’t make the mistake of thinking youa re dealing with reasoning beings. She may he educated but she is an SJW and a woman.

    Get that book. And if you have to, take as many of these disgusting vile civilization destroying communists and gobalists down with you as you can.

    Robel is bringing the university into disrepute, so she should be fired outright from all her positions. There is no magnanimity here sir. She wants you homeless and imprisoned, and your books burned and your genetic line eradicated.

    • Agree: awry, Bubba
  7. “…Of course, a quotation is not an endorsement of the quote, or of the article it was in, or of the article’s author, or of the magazine which published the article, or the nephew of the editor of the magazine which published the article, but it was concluded that Eric Rasmusen hates women…”

    That is the typical guilt-by-association reasoning which members of the Cultural Marxist Mafia always use. In this case the taboo of not subscribing to the idea that men and women are equal (and thus exactly the same) has been broken and that is unforgivable. The cultural-political situation in the West is at present comparable to the high days of the Red Guards in Mao’s China. As the Chinese say : We are living in “interesting times”.

    • Replies: @Ragno
  8. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    My sympathies to Professor Rasmusen. Now that he’s been slandered on Twitter and backed up in this charge against him by the Provost of his university, he will have a monkey on his back for the rest of his academic career. Even if he won a lawsuit for defamation against the Provost most of the public (and probably all of the liberal community) would remain blissfully ignorant of that and continue to presume the man is a lowlife who disseminates “racist, sexist and homophobic views.”

    Anything disparaging said about a public figure can never be fully eradicated from the public forum, just like corrupt data concerning your ID or personal history remain in the world-wide computer network forever, no matter how many times you seek to have the shared files corrected. Actually this is worse than that, as Robel seems to have ostentatiously tried to hang an albatross around Rasmusen’s neck by her “proclamation” against the professor. I can only speculate on the reasons for such contemptible actions: That you-know-who failed to get “her turn” in the last election, “Me too mania” is spreading like a virus, and “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is metastasizing to target all white males of any position and influence quickly come to mind.

    • Replies: @OscarWildeLoveChild
  9. The statement by Provost Robel appears designed to solicit complaints against Professor Rasmusen from both students and faculty. One might characterise this strategy as devious and cowardly.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  10. Enormous waste of energy, this should be a non issue. Giving head on all sides encourages the stokers. Somebody higher up should douse this war about nothing.

  11. Alfred says:

    The university system in the USA – and many other places – has become unbearably unimaginative and boring. It is about time the internet replaced all these “courses”. Economics has little applicability in the real world. I have never heard of any economist who became wealthy using the stuff they teach students.

    University should be reserved for hard-science and medicine. IMHO, it is just a way of keeping a large number of young energetic people out of the labour market.

  12. Dorian says:

    Frankly, You Both Should Be Fired!

    Eric Rasmusen you are a hypocrite and a bloody snob!

    You criticise Lauren Robel for being hypocritical how and when she choose the law or university regulations and how she judges others by her twisted view of the world. Granted, I whole heartedly agree with that.

    But, sir, you are also guilty of the same bias and hypocrisy. You use your academic snobbery to brow beat others in their personal views and behaviours while at the same time you are guilty of gross academic incompetence.

    For instance, your use of the IQ. Its well known it does nothing to suggest intelligence. There have been many people, savants and geniuses like Beethoven, that are marked with low IQ scores but are true geniuses.

    Frankly, Rasmusen, you are an academic SNOB. And for that, and for that alone, you should be fired, along with Robel, for academic bias, spreading lies, and spreading social injustice throughout society with your backward views of humanity and just plain prejudices, that have no place in an university!

    Tenure or not…. the world is better off with people you and Robel NOT IN UNIVERSITIES!

    Frankly, you belong in a museum, the museum of tyrants, hypocrites and intellectual snobs!

  13. Antares says:

    She sounds like an idealist woman who confuses one with the other. Women like her (from both sexes) will never engage in a fair and open fight. She does not want to fight but exert power. She is a power freak.

    “The Provost is taking the opposite tack here, saying that we should not care about what people from other cultures and times would think about what we say, only people in 2019 America.”

    Excellent words from professor Rasmusen. The Provost is nothing but a fashion girl.

  14. @Gaius Gracchus

    Agreed. He’ll need that, and more. From the essay:

    Thus, don’t fire Professor Eric: fire Provost Lauren. The university’s best interests are not her priority. Ideology as [is?] more important than scholarship.

    There’s one practical difficulty with firing a college administrator on those grounds in the Current Year. Our nation’s institutions of higher education would be bereft of administrators.

    Well, I guess that’s a bad thing, but I’m not sure.

  15. Dr. Rasmusen, I expect that you, as an expert on game theory, have planned ahead for this situation.

    • LOL: Lo
  16. bispora says:

    “To understand why, one needs to understand some concepts from academic psychology. Men and women have the same average IQ score, but men have higher variance, as they do on many characteristics.”

    The problem is a little bit deeper. IQ tests always normalized for the same IQ score for men and women. In a sex independent IQ test men would overperform women by ~3 IQ points. That is the main cause of the measurable tail effect.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @TRM
  17. Svevlad says:

    You can’t beat these people with arguments and logic.

    A 2kg sledgehammer, however…

  18. Richard B says:

    Golly, she’s an ugly lump. Is that why she hates men?

    As the ancient Greeks would say, Ugly Face, Ugly Soul

    By the way, if

    Ideology trumps everything else

    how can there be

    “light and truth”


  19. 1) No such thing as “private social media.”

    2) shitlib double standard: Outsiders are branded as having all the attributes and opinions of whomever they’re quoting, but mohammedans are never accused of being pedophilic murderous warlords like mohammed.

    3) If The Nose wants you unpersoned, you’re unpersoned. No one is safe. A tenured professor was fired not too long ago for the crime of wrongthink.

  20. DR3 says:

    Good. Don’t back down. The SJW expects everyone to cave. The professor is correct – even the little people should fight back at all times.

  21. Professor Rasmusen is unable to see the forest for the trees. He’s attempting to use a higher-order mental process of facts, logic, and reason against a lower-order visceral process based on feelings and fantasies, disguised by a patina of specious rationalizations and semantic games.

    It should be glaringly obvious by now. Over and over, we see that reality means nothing to a leftist, only their fantasy delusions are important. They couldn’t care less about facts; they don’t care about consistency, they don’t give a flying f**k about hypocrisy. The results of this mentality are emotional virtue-signaling, sanctimonious moral preening, and a vicious purity spiral that mindlessly seeks to destroy anyone who doesn’t conform.

    The big picture? The professor has run up against a personalized example of what happens to society when there is a matriarchy of feminine instead of masculine control.

  22. We had conservative professors of economics at the state college where I attended as an undergrad, some of them vets. Dr. Rasmusen is the exception among academia today. It was with pleasant surprise with which I read his column.

    Scientific rigor is hard enough without bringing ideology into the mix. Politics has made a mockery of the the climate change debate. It reminds me of how we were taught about the russians during the cold war. It wasn’t a good career plan to challenge one’s superior’s. It would be a shame for the same ideology to take root and win the day in any institution, including government jurisdictions.

  23. Obviously she should be fired from the Provost role, you’ve laid it out very clearly.

  24. Exactly what kind of Feminist Administrator is this anyway, forgetting the squabble with E.R.? I would think Robel would better spend her time demanding that a very small subset of enterprising and cynical (if tyrannical and bullying) men claiming transsexual privilege stop robbing women of the hard-won privileges dispensed to women under TitleIX.

    That Robel ignores THAT little tidbit while blowing this up and slandering Rasmusen tells me she’s a traitor to her own gender. And a coward. And until these sorts of academic critters start leading the way on the Gender Theft of these “men>women” poaching the spoils of Title IXwomen’s sports, what am I to think of the rest of their agenda and scribblings? Until they speak truth and challenge THAT particular injustice to women, a real and tangible one, come what may, the rest of us can assume they are immune to any truth and are merely tics on a host.

    Just saying.

  25. Richard B says:
    @Otto Bismarck

    Very awesome!!!! So glad we have an American version of J Peterson, and especially citing the Unz Review. This will mean more publicity for Unz and his awesome website (even though Walton wrote that originally at VDare).

    I share your enthusiasm for this article, that it’ll mean more publicity for TUR and I’m glad you mentioned Walton and VDARE. But do we need an American version of J Peterson?

    How can someone with literally no intellectual principles give other people rules for life?

    Because he’s never discussed the elements of thought, or listed any intellectual standards, his thinking lacks organization and structure. He’s not a serious, original thinker. And he’s most definitely no intellectual innovator.

    All he’s got are those creepy finger-twiddling videos where he strings together quotes and ideas based on what others have said, or his take on them, in a haphazard, hard to follow manner. And all without any solid principle of justification.

    And speaking of creepy, his whole public image is presented as if he were a charismatic cult-figure, instead of a serious intellectual. More Rabbi than Scholar.

    So, no, we don’t need an American Jordan Peterson.

    We need to rescue the life of the mind and the world of ideas from the one place that’s done and continues to do everything it can to kill them – the universities.

    In fact, since it takes a greater capital investment to revitalize a deteriorating institution than it does to create a new one, we should just bite the bullet, accept the fact that the university died a long time ago, and start a new academic institution that preserves and inculcates the values of high culture that are so essential for humanity’s survival.

    Perhaps Eric Rasmusen can petition someone like Peter Thiel for the financial supported needed to do just that.

    It’s not climate change, but pseudo-intellectualism, educational malpractice, moral pomposity, cultural stagnation and societal collapse, that’s killing us.

    To put it bluntly, the university is an accomplice in the soul murder of humanity.

    The sooner we muster the courage to face that unpleasant fact, and organize as a group in form to do something about it, the better off we’ll be.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    , @Emslander
  26. joannf says:

    I have a collection of quotes and text blocks in connection with intelligence statistics that I gathered from diverse websites over the last years, and that I find could be disturbing to the official narrative.
    I c/p’d a few here, please have a look :

    If… girls and boys know about the same amount of math but boys’ test scores are consistently and significantly higher, then the test is biased.

    Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. 7 Title IX was enacted in 1972 to ensure that females receive the same educational opportunities as males. 8 The language of this statute is modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 9 the educational counterpart to the equal employment statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.10 Part II of this Note delves into the history of standardized tests as they relate to higher education, focusing primarily on the SAT.In their introduction to the first revision of the Stanford-Binet, Terman and his collaborator Maude Merrill eliminated a few tests in their trial batteries that yielded the largest sex differences. There is evidence that David Wechsler, another IQ test constructor did the same.

    A relevant video whose link I had held in evidence has, to my shock and utter surprise, been deleted by youtube.

    The wikipedia page about nerve cell counts in mammals states this (these being approximations, there’s a tendency for these counts to grow over the years, they are kinda hard to count) :

    15,000,000,000* Fin Whale

    16,000,000,000 (male)
    13,440,000,000 (female) Homo sapiens’

    37,200,000,000* Long-finned pilot whale.

    Draw your own conclusions, but be wary of publishing them.

  27. Agreed, fire Provost Robel. Immediately.

  28. Realist says:

    Fire Professor Eric Rasmusen? Or Fire Provost Lauren Robel Instead?

    For people of intelligence the answer is simple keep Professor Rasmusen and fire Robel. This country needs more of the former and none of the latter. Don’t back down.

  29. Clyde says:

    Good luck Professor. You are a stand up guy!

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
  30. @Dorian

    And where do you belong?

    • Replies: @Biff
  31. JessicaR says:

    I believe Professor Rasmussen is misrepresenting the issues here. First of all, the female dean did declare that she would not and could not fire him and that it was not even a close call. She explained her views in terms of the Constitution.

    Okay, she failed to mention academic freedom, but does Rasmussen not realize that by citing the First Amendment that she is actually offering a broader protection of free speech to all who express disagreeable opinions, even if they are not in academia?

    Therefore, her views protect all Americans, not just those in the academic elite.

    Rasmussen’s complaint isn’t that Robel didn’t back his right to keep his job but that she didn’t do so in his preferred terms.

    I guess his feelings are hurt that she called his views vile and disgusting. Wah. Wah. Who’s being emotional and overly sensitive now?

    In addition, I believe Rasmussen misrepresents his twitter feed. Yes, he posts the tweet about women’s studies and home economics but he does not mention it in the body of his article. One tweet, about the relationship between gender and genius is undisputed fact, although the reasons for that fact’s existence might still be in dispute.

    But comparing women’s studies to home-ec is pure snark and not at all scientific or research-based. He presents himself as an academic but glosses over his outburst of unsubstantiated opinion.

    Rasmussen is being the over-emotional type of person he probably thinks women are.

  32. John Tree says:

    I spite of Lauren Robel’s low agreeableness and low conscientiousness, she is still one qualifier away from being a potential genius…but the odds were against her all along.

  33. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    The universities of the United States are rapidly getting to be the laughing stock of the world. Political correctness has torn apart what once was one of the leading higher education systems of the world. Political correctness isn’t a problem in either Russian or Chinese universities and having this millstone around the neck of the American academy doesn’t just mean that they’re slower in the race, it means that they don’t even get to start.

  34. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    Beethoven took an IQ test? Amazing! Yah learn something every day on Unz!

  35. Dr. X says:

    University administrators are Stalinist apparatchiks, not intellectuals. Their job is to purge all dissent from the party line.

    The only reason Prof. Rasmusen is able to get away with challenging the hideous provost is that his is tenured. However, I can tell you from personal experience that untenured faculty have zero academic freedom and will be gotten rid of on the slightest pretext.

    Beyond that, even tenured faculty can become the victims of student riots and protests or smear campaigns that involve false or questionable allegations of “misconduct” on a sufficiently “woke” campus.

    Prof. Rasmusen should be congratulated for pushing back against these people, but there aren’t going to be many people backing him up…

  36. @Richard B

    Fair take, but it leaves something out. How would you gain academic (really political) accreditation for such an institution, once that teaches and debates the truth without walls going up? Forgetting THAT, there are the kids, the raw material incoming. Exactly who coming out of K-12 is capable of being educated in such a place of truth and reality? You have to erase most of their former education, toughen them up somehow, make them into college material before you could begin. For most, a repeat of high school. We aren’t talking about a mere reform of university because look at the raw material that appears every autumn to be “educated”.

    I look at the academic landscape and see the WHY of revolutions that started with the destruction of the academics or right after they killed all the lawyers. I would start with the academics in this country before the lawyers could get involved. Their greed, their indoctrination, the way they’ve enriched themselves to the impoverishment of their ‘students’, all will be held to account if the folks with the pitchforks ever get on the road. They are reprehensible.

  37. Biff says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    And where do you belong?

    In a ancient Greek tribe..

  38. eah says:

    Simple yes/no question for you: in his article here, prof Rasmusen gives a a link to Robel’s statement, as well as a suggestion re what she should have said instead; if you haven’t read Robel’s full statement yet, do so now, and then answer the following question with yes or no:

    Given her position and his, do you find her statement re prof Rasmusen measured and appropriate?

  39. Z-man says:

    …as always ‘Beware the Power of the Cabal.

    PS.Good for Unz to have the professor write here.

  40. Emslander says:
    @Richard B

    The developed model of the university has become a great hollowed tree, rotted from the inside and ready to be toppled with the next storm.

    You are right to call for some new kind of structure, but your attacks on Peterson are misplaced. He might very well be a model for your new learning movement. It’s clear to me that his teaching is derived almost wholly from C. G. Jung, who famously rejected intellectualism as just one more trap. Why shouldn’t a teacher of psychology (the term “professor” is purposely avoided) wrap himself in the lessons of a great thinker as he conveys the concepts. If you knew Jung, you’d know what it’s about.

    Socrates was one man, constantly thinking and debating, who began the whole thing. He was executed for his central thought which is this: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

    • Replies: @Richard B
  41. I think he’s a silly attention seeker for not predicting the consequences of that, much like Watson with his comments on Africa.

    I believe the difference between male and female cognitive achievement is rooted rather in fundamental inclination rather than difference of ability. Males (and lesbian females) are interested in their work, tinkering, scholarly inquiry. It fills their every waking moment. Most females are more inclined by nature to child rearing, mate winning, social networking. They can imitate and even outcompete males in the short run(I think the two top sstudents in my chemical engineering program were female) but in the long run, men’s “soul devotion,” pun intended, is what results in invention and achievement. Girls’ hearts are typically elsewhere.

    There may be a difference in actual ability in certain areas like mathematics, but it’s slight, and doesn’t explain the difference in representation.

  42. I have three pieces of advice:

    1. Talk to a solid First Amendment lawyer;

    2. Talk to a solid First Amendment lawyer; and

    3. Talk to a solid First Amendment lawyer.

  43. @JessicaR

    Inasmuch as Provost Lauren Robel’s statement created a hostile work environment for Professor Eric Rasmusen, her statement is actionable.

    It cuts both ways.

    • Replies: @Haha
    , @eah
  44. Affirmative action and feminism haven’t panned out like it was suppose to. We gals were all suppose to get board room seats and rich CEO hubbies. The girls are mad. You men should know now it’s never our fault…ever. IQ realities are just one of many pesky facts that prick holes in our utopian fantasies. ( By the way my new favorite one is if we all time travel back a couple centuries, those men would recognize our greatness. Ha, ha with that one. ) Good luck Professor.

  45. Ragno says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The parallels between Mao’s Cultural Revolution and our own current dark hour are so stark and unmistakable that the complete radio silence on the topic maintained by Western media and intelligentsia only provide sinister verification that those are more than mere echoes we’re experiencing; surely by now someone, somewhere, would have pointed this out in a NY Times op-ed or similar venue.

    I’d add something about a new broom sweeping clean but the amount of rubble and debris overwhelming our society and its institutions will require something far cruder to effectively do the job. Like, for instance, a cow-catcher.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  46. Saggy says: • Website

    He presents himself as an academic but glosses over his outburst of unsubstantiated opinion.

    If you read Robel’s proclamation you see that she proclaimed that Rasmussen’s views were vile, stupid, loathsome, and bigoted. This woman is just an idiot. She should be fired for being totally unsuited for her job.

  47. @Ragno

    There’s nothing so wrong with America that can’t be fixed by someone like Pol Pot, starting with Academia and Media. Sure, a few good ones like the professor might get caught up unfairly, but on ne fait pas d’omelette sans casser d’œufs.

    • Replies: @Cato
  48. Goetz says:

    I think that Lauren Robel would feel much better after a makeover.

    • Replies: @Eric Rasmusen
  49. Haha says:

    Not what on earth does the phrase “racist, sexist and homophobic views” mean? It seems to be used as the incantation prior to ruining someone. No doubt true believers also used magical incantations prior to setting witches on fire. I don’t like your views, I accuse you of holding “racist, sexist and homophobic views”, and that gives me a license to declare open season on you.

    How about going after these intolerant libtard fanatics by devising our own magic incantations? How about “dangerous, delusional and destructive”, or “fanatical, extremist and totalitarian”? More creative minds needed for this.

  50. Haha says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    “Inasmuch as Provost Lauren Robel’s statement created a hostile work environment for Professor Eric Rasmusen, her statement is actionable.”

    Boy, you might have nailed it! Ultimately this sort of intolerance and nonsense will have to be fought out in the courts, in elections, in the media, and every which way if we are to avoid going under the libtard jackboot.

  51. The intolerance of ideas for tolerance of ideas . . .

    in educational settings no less . . .

    tsk, tsk and tsk.

  52. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:

    (“Golly, she’s an ugly lump. Is that why she hates men?”)
    “The name Robel is of Hebrew origin and means “The first son of Jacob from the old testament”.

    Not all Jewish women are homely though many have a dumpy inbred look. But what she does have is that doctrinaire leftist ideology that has rendered academia a total abortion, sunken from it’s heights of yesteryear.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  53. Richard B says:

    The fatal thing about celebrity intellectuals is that their mediocre minds are extolled as “great” by credulous people devoid of judgment.

  54. Dan Hayes says:

    A twofer: both the Unz Review and Lance Welton (via VDARE) in the spotlight!

  55. gsjackson says:

    I knew Lauren Robel in law school in the early ’80s. She was a demure young single mother from the South, very smart, very nice and very humble (despite racking up the A stars (top score) in about every class she took). I don’t think you’d find a single dissenting opinion from this view among the people who knew her in law school. I’d guess her politics were leftish, but she wasn’t front and center with them. Not an ugly soul at all, and not to all appearances a man-hater. She came from an Air Force family.

    To give you an idea of the intellectual milieu she came out of at the IU law school: Her colleague as constitutional law professor — the person whose views on the law she has said she valued above all others — had this to say about Roe v Wade to our class: “Those of you who are doctrinaire liberals, as I am, will probably agree that this is a fine statute. But you have to admit that it is a statute — something legislatures do — and not really constitutional law.” This same professor had this to say in 1982 in response to my contention that the liberal arts faculty at IU was full of ACLU-type liberals: “That’s not true. They’re Marxists and Marcuseans.” In other words, they thought civil liberties such as free speech were sops thrown to the bourgeoisie, and of little value, if not counterproductive.

    As Robel moved on from Dean of the law school to Provost of the university and into the liberal arts world (from whence she came originally — she had a masters in English before coming to law school), I suppose she became a product of her new environment, which, if it was prepared to dispense with free speech in 1982, surely has no use whatsoever for it now. How do you maintain a lofty position in such an environment without taking regular opportunities to virtue signal and denounce critics of cultural degradation?

    But what interests me in particular is her putting on the legal hat and saying it’s not even a close call that the First Amendment prevents public institutions from firing their employees for expressions of opinion. If that’s the case, why aren’t the public interest lawyers lined up to take the case of the principal of a public school in Florida who was fired for stating that some people believe the Holocaust didn’t happen?

    The assault on free speech is one of the great (uncovered by the media, of course) battles of our time, from state sanctions against BDS to Twitter and Youtube censoring politically incorrect views while functioning essentially as the public square.

  56. anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:

    Indiana is a red state, why aren’t the Republicans getting rid of these progressive academic morons in their public universities? At least prevent them from gaining any power. Do a ideology litmus test, if necessary, you have to fight dirty.Get rid of useless departments like gender studies. It’s bad enough that the blue states are infested, there is no reason why red states can’t maintain sanity in their academic institutions.

  57. Hacienda says:

    Firstly, there’s actually a brown bag Nietzsche scholar and the UofC Law school? Good times.

    I guess you could also call this situation “Bob Knight’s Revenge”. Where did you stand on that matter?
    If you were for Knight’s firing, I have no sympathy for you.

  58. It is not clear whether Professor Rasmussen has been using social media noting that he is a professor at U of I. If so, I believe he is wrong.
    For decades I have railed against academics writing letters to, and having opinion articles published by, news outlets, when they do so on their own time. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read letters to the editor, with the title of the writer and university below, while expressing his/her own opinion. It is not uncommon for those opinions to be out of touch with reality, or weakly argued. The title and name of the academic institution are there purely to inflate their self importance.
    I know several PhDs who know everything about their narrow field of interest, but little else. Their commenting on the “else” would carry as much weight as my commenting on their field of interest. By adding “Professor” and/or “University” they gain undeserved credibility.

    I agree that Eric Rasmussen is entitled to his private opinions on social media and elsewhere, but Professor Rasmussen, Indiana University, Bloomington Campus, is not.

  59. Miro23 says:

    I suppose she became a product of her new environment, which, if it was prepared to dispense with free speech in 1982, surely has no use whatsoever for it now. How do you maintain a lofty position in such an environment without taking regular opportunities to virtue signal and denounce critics of cultural degradation?

    It looks like a giant interlocking system, with a lifetime network of people benefiting from the Zio-Glob SJW world. Their incomes and social status depend on it.

    Maybe not unlike the Soviet Union, with an entrenched elite who followed the speech codes, plus fully connected to the network benefits on offer. They weren’t going to risk it all by any truth telling.

    The US Zio-Glob SWJ Empire could also end the same way as the Soviet one – with economic failure and collapse. And the Zio-Glob SWJ’s leadership would be expected to fast change sides and magically rediscover their nationalists roots.

  60. eah says:

    But what interests me in particular is her putting on the legal hat and saying it’s not even a close call that the First Amendment prevents public institutions from firing their employees for expressions of opinion.

    Thanks for your comment — re firing Rasmusen, here are her exact words:

    We cannot, nor would we, fire Professor Rasmusen for his posts as a private citizen, as vile and stupid as they are, because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids us to do so. That is not a close call.

    Maybe she was also thinking of the fact that Rasmusen is tenured — or maybe she’s not as smart as you think she is (intelligence among English majors, even those who later attend law school, is not the same as among mathematicians and physicists).

    If that’s the case, why aren’t the public interest lawyers lined up to take the case of the principal of a public school in Florida who was fired for stating that some people believe the Holocaust didn’t happen?

    A good question; I expect him to sue — Palm Beach County, where he (William Latson) worked, is extremely Jewish (“Palm Beach County has 12,000 Holocaust survivors, among the most in the country.”)

    Also recall: James Tracy was fired by Florida Atlantic University for comments he made about Sandy Hook.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  61. Art says:

    Thus, don’t fire Professor Eric: fire Provost Lauren. The university’s best interests are not her priority. Ideology as more important than scholarship. Teaching quality is measured by political viewpoint. Lauren Robel should not be Provost; she should not be Dean; she should not be any kind of administrator at Indiana University.

    Hear Hear!

    Finally some is fighting back against a PC thug!

    Kudos Professor Eric!

  62. gsjackson says:

    “…maybe she’s not as smart as you think she is…”

    Well, she did get the year we started law school wrong in some public remarks a few years back, so maybe she’s getting a little dotty with age and lifelong seclusion in academic ghettos. She obviously could have mentioned tenure too, but the spirit of the First Amendment gave rise to tenure, so it’s pretty much the same argument.

    I was interested to read Rasmussen’s remark that he could defend himself from termination with contract law. Is tenure written into their employment contracts, once granted?

    • Replies: @eah
  63. Anon[180] • Disclaimer says:

    Your silly inane statement proves the Professor’s point.

    Truth is not vile or stupid. The only issue that matters here is whether or not what Rasmusen says is true.

    Is it true?

    Do you think someone who calls someone vile and stupid for telling the truth is going to provide him with impartial management and leadership? Do you think someone who calls truth vile and stupid even belongs in a College or University at all given the purpose of the institution? She has branded herself as a political hack and a partisan manager who can’t be trusted to impartially execute her terms of references to improve the bottom-line of the College.

    This disgusting ugly fool should be fired, immediately, as should anyone else who demonstrates a failure to adhere to the propositions of the United States and best interests of the College.

    This Provost quite clearly despises the first amendment, because it curtails her ability to abrogate truth and to purge anyone who she regards as politically unacceptable regardless of the benefits they offer to the College. She makes her view of both the constitution and truth very, very clear, even as she pretends otherwise. Always inversion, even in the lower echelons.

    That is someone who actually shouldn’t even be considered an American, let alone allowed a role of pedagogy.

    The fact you can’t grasp this shows just how stupid you are. Is it comfortable sitting on the trough of the curve?

    “I guess his feelings are hurt that she called his views vile and disgusting. Wah. Wah. Who’s being emotional and overly sensitive now?”

    Is what he said true? Or is what he said false? Is truth vile and disgusting? And is that a small matter or a large one?

    Again, your cliched unlettered comment just shows how stupid and trite you are.

    “In addition, I believe Rasmussen misrepresents his twitter feed. Yes, he posts the tweet about women’s studies and home economics but he does not mention it in the body of his article. One tweet, about the relationship between gender and genius is undisputed fact, although the reasons for that fact’s existence might still be in dispute. ”

    The Professor is being far to kind, and far too magnanimous. Home economics is vastly superior to women’s studies, in that it offers some basic truths grounded in domestic skills, and offers the prospect of economic and marginal utility.

    Women’s studies on the other hand is an artifact of the kind of economic surplus created by men like Professor Rasmusen. It’s a grotesque waste of money and a ludicrous set of lies – there is a reason it is a meme for futility and uselessness.

    And I’ve read all the first wave feminists. You know what the difference is between the first wave and all subsequent? Those women actually understood economic hardship and had read the men they purported to criticise, and sympathised with them. Virginia Woolf actually read Dickens, and she was actually sympathetic to Coleridge.

    Women today would just urinate on Dickens in the streets.

    The Professor was vastly too kind. Women’s studies shouldn’t exist. Home economics however should.

    And it isn’t pure snark. You what is pure snark? A reference to someone’s social media accounts – that’s pure snark. You know why people love Gordon Ramsay in particular? Because he calls trite feeble petty pert idiot women out for what they are.

    You’re too thick to be in College, clearly.

    Rasmussen isn’t being overly-emotional at all.

    He understands very clearly – there isn’t going to be any amicable or convivial pretend reconciliation here.

    That disgusting fat ugly provost and all her dumb-dumb little minions should be fired by the University, and then they should actually be deported from the United States for betraying it’s animating principles.

    There is going to be such a huge correction coming, when the economic edifice that supports all of this idiocy finally comes crashing to a halt.

    Women in particular, the kind of women like the Provost who preside over the mass immiseration of women of lower class are going to face the consequences of their stupidity.

    I suggest you study home ec and learn some actual skills.

    The Professor isn’t going to apologise, women need to learn the true implications of the false equality they purport to enforce.

    95% of women shouldn’t be in a university, or engaged in education at all. This kind of cultural marxism just demonstrates, yet again, the futility of the proposition nation. Because this ugly viper badger has quite clarly reneged upon the propositions, yet she is allowed to reside in the state.

    Feminism is going to be the shortest lived historical epoch that ever existed.

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  64. @gsjackson


    Maybe she is playing 4D chess and her statement she obviously couldn’t fire him was her real message and the rest just fodder to cover herself.

    That would be interesting. In which case, she shouldn’t be fired.

    But it’s impossible to know absent further signalling. So game theory would say she still should.

    That’s undermined by her reference to Rasmusen’s social media. It sound’s like she wanted to make his life unpleasant and difficutl and start an SJW swarm.

  65. Having observed over 3+ decades the movement of women into what were primarily male dominated departments, sciences-engineering, my observation is that women don’t make great scientists. My best description of this “phenomenon” is that women naturally want to be “part of the group” while male scholars, again the various sciences being the context, men want to “distinguish themselves (as superior) from the group.”
    I’ve seen newly hired female tenure-track faculty get off into starting department “dinner groups” or hosting social events. The male new-hires stick to working with their Ph.D supervisors and continuing to publish in those related areas of scholarship. The men make tenure.

  66. @Dorian

    So, Dorian, you’ve made the incredible discovery that Beethoven took an IQ test and you have the results?

    Most of us didn’t even know they had IQ tests back then.

  67. @Anon

    Don’t tell any us your true feelings.

    • Replies: @Anon
  68. @Anonymous

    He should simply tweet a binary yes/no for her to answer:

    “Islam is right about women…yes/no?”

    If she fails to answer, his next tweet is, Provost refuses to answer..refuses to defend Islam…etc

    Counter-striking by proxy, is the best weapon outside of the normal defenses (legal and otherwise). They always attack by proxy, associations and the like…tag her as an Islamophobe and amplify every communication to and from her.

  69. Dutch Boy says:

    Prof. Rasmussen should expect a visit from Antifa in the near future.

  70. @Dorian

    IQ test invented 1904.
    Beethoven died 1827.

    • Replies: @Global Citizen
  71. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizex"] says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Time machine. Why not? Everything else is bullshit.

    Let’s talk about B’s hair now.

  72. @dearieme

    Golly, she’s an ugly lump. Is that why she hates men?

    I usually limit the anagrams to Steve’s page, but her general spread of vowels is quite productive:

    Lauren Robel = Boner allure.

    More appropriately,

    Enroll a rube.
    No able ruler.
    Unroll a beer.

    • Agree: Flint Clint
  73. Anon[180] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Her proclamation in the end boils down to telling the truth is evil.

    Black students are less academically capable then white students.
    Women in the Labour market has simply debased the purchasing power of wages to the point you now need two working parents, in conjunction with the Fed’s inflation.
    Gay faculty ‘are’ notorious for being sexual predators.

    And so he has to submit to double blind marking.

    Well what right wing student feels like they could write anything truthful now to any of this faculty or indeed even their fellow students?

    If you don’t say coloured waz Kangz, and the obese shrew is really beautiful, and the homosexuals have never committed a sexual offence against children when they were founded by Harry Hay, you will be destroyed.

    Yet none of these people will be subject to ‘double blind’ marking and bias appraisal, will they? What do you think would happen if you observed the statistics about Transexual suicides to a transsexual administration marking your paper? If you questioned gay mirage because of, for example, it’s 100% non-monogamy rate after 5 years? Etc

    This is a cold war.

    These people need to understand that when they commit egregious offence against the good, the beautiful and the true and try to destroy people’s lives they could suffer quite serious consequences and penalties.

    One could go on.

    But in essence, this is a microcosm of why this country needs to partition.

    Professor Rasmusen needs to cause as much pain for these ingrates as possible, and then add to it, until they learn to leave him alone.

    Conservatives haven’t even fought any genuine battles, let alone won any. Theodore Beale has showed that simply standing your ground, works.

    There isn’t enough invective possible for second and third wave feminists. And actually, where did Woolfe end up despite her wealth and Bloomsbury set friends. In a lake, with rocks in her pockets. Her putative ‘Mozart’s sister’ despite now there being not just female equality but female supremacy has never eventuated.


    Because Professor Rasmusen is right. There never was a Mozart’s sister. There never will be a Mozart’s sister.

    No, no, instead female emancipation has led to two giant brown buttocks at MTV, twerking and 100+ sexual partners, and mental illness and mass immiseration.

    Feminism is economically doomed. It is demonstrably worse then communism:

    “One-third of working class women have always worked. The change brought by feminism is that now middle class and upper middle class married women work as well. And the more women that work, the more women have to work and the less time women who don’t work will have with their husbands who support them, because an INCREASE in the SUPPLY of labor necessitates a DECREASE in the PRICE of labor, demand remaining constant.

    And to make matters worse, demand does not remain constant, but actually declines, because a woman who works is statistically much less likely to eventually become a wife and mother, and even when she does, she becomes one several years later and has fewer children. This means that feminism is a structural economic failure as it creates a downward-spiraling vicious circle of three easily identifiable revolutions:
    The increase in the supply of labor causes wages to go down. This is indisputable in either logical or empirical terms.
    Female hypergamy, female independence, and opportunity cost reduces the marriage rate and the average birth rate, while increased male work hours and work-related romantic opportunities increases the divorce rate. These connections are all logically sound and readily observable.
    The reduced birth rate has a negative effect on consumption, and therefore the demand for labor, 20 years before the consequent negative effects on the supply of labor can help balance it out, putting further negative pressure on wage rates. This is also indisputable, both logically and empirically.

    While this didn’t have to be the case, feminism has also played a role in the debt crisis of the United States, as the Social Security system, Medicare, and Medicaid were set up structurally to be dependent upon the male breadwinner/female homemaker family model and a birthrate higher than the replacement level. Funding for those systems was doomed post-1973, necessitating either their complete restructuring or funding them through debt; obviously the latter path was the one taken, much to the detriment of those who are now on the hook for it.

    The complete systematic failure of feminism as well as every society which incorporates the concept of sexual equality is no less predictable than the complete systematic failure of socialism. Ludwig von Mises correctly predicted the failure of socialist societies in his “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, published only three years after the October Revolution, on the basis of socialism’s intrinsic inability to establish a pricing mechanism.

    The economic flaws of feminism are no less obvious, no less fundamental and no more avoidable than the economic flaws of socialism. Feminism’s structural inability to sustain wage rates and birth rates spells the inevitable doom of every feminist society, as surely as the inability to calculate prices spells the doom of every socialist society. “Gender equality” hasn’t stalled because it isn’t being sufficiently enforced by the government, it has stalled because it is in the process of collapsing along with the society it has infested.”

    So when Woolfe was rabbiting on about ‘not being able to step on the Grass’ outside Baliol at Oxford, I can’t imagine she ever would have envisaged a future where her intellectual forebears were childless anti-intellectuals destroying economies, histories, and societies and sexualising children, and hagioraphying homosexuals.

    Just for the edification of that stupid bint who gave her shit little comment:

    Homosexuals do suffer from a catastrophe of mental health problems, because the condition itself is a mental illness – so why should any child or colleague be exposed to them?

    The only reason homosexuality was removed as a mental illness from the DSM was because of high intensity sustained domestic terrorism against that books editorial staff.

    I’ve had to lie disgustingly to get my College degrees, and regularly talk to women who can’t fucking understand anything I say because they’re too stupid – and that includes women with IQ’s 140 plus, measured. It’s only when you know what your grandfathers received and compare it to today that you can really gauge the appropriate level of disgust.

    The truth is that women are too stupid to think ahead more then 5 minutes and view the macro effects of their micro preferences, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about your local hooker or Marilyn Vos Savant.

    This provost should be fired – her entire kind, class and set are going to be responsible for the destruction of western civilization. All the Gertrude Stein types, and she seems to fit the bill based on her physiognomy regardless of a comment about her apparently being an Air Force Wife, need to be deported to Venezuela or Spain, where they can enjoy the fruits of their socialistic tendencies.

    Professor Rasmusen needs to continue doing a good job of making the prospect of the rubble bouncing and everything burning getting more and more acute.

    Because Colleges are starting to get shut – especially law schools, because of the supply-demand dynamic Theodore Beale was referring to and Glenn Reynolds has substantiated more specifically, where not only is the supply debasing in quantity, but also quality due to affirmative action and ever decreasing entrance standards.

    It’s not possible to denigrate feminism enough. It’s simply not possible. It was all too much for Virginia who simply walked into a pond – she couldn’t see her own victimhood at the hands of the people who ‘invented’ her ideology which caused her depression and distress because, despite her superlative literary skills, in the end, she was just another solipsistic female. As she said, after World War I, Coleridge’s ‘The Nightingale’ was never the same.

    Even if there is some merit to first wave feminism, we have to stamp out our desire for nurturing for the good of the next set of generations. It’s just not possible to heal all the leg-cutters and philanderers and cocaine using hooker-women that grant us the privileges of their insights.

    So when I said that women like pig-face provost are causing the immiseration of generations of lower class women, I meant it.

    Because the structural economic flaw in feminism not only immiserates women who aren’t College provosts economically, it also destroys their prospects for marriage and family which destroys them psychologically – and every single female academic I’ve ever read then says the answer is more state welfare and onerous regulations on men in the sexual market economy which is like an exponential multiplier on the bad effects.

    In the end, Feminism culminates in a vicious patriarchy – the only question is which one.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @gsjackson
  74. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    And you want what? The bliss of an idiocracy I should think.

  75. Fortunately, I believe the “worm” is turning, if but slowly. Education in particular is an institution that is very hard to move, as their goal of influencing generations is more long term, but move it must. I heard talk that enrollments are down, that more high schoolers are foregoing student loans, and pursuing trades. That can’t be good news to the over paid administrators.
    Am I a misogynist to say: What a woman wants most is security and a family? I think not. Do women prefer effeminate men? I think not. It’s the media that pushes the narrative, and when the narrative gets too far off the moral road, the people will in time tune that media out.

  76. I will go out on a limb here to say: Professor Rasmussen did not find a position at Harvard because he is a Gentile.

    • Replies: @joe862
  77. @Dorian

    There have been many people, savants and geniuses like Beethoven, that are marked with low IQ scores but are true geniuses.

    You have Beethoven’s IQ score? Please share it. He died 30 years before Alfred Binet was born.

    Besides, intelligence and compositional ability are not that correlative, and innate gifts are vastly overrated in music. Cole Porter lacked them, yet he’s one of the greatest America has produced.

    Same with similar arts. Rodney Dangerfield had no gift for comedy at all, but worked his way to the top. As Edison said, it’s perspiration, not inspiration.

    • Replies: @Global Citizen
  78. KenH says:

    Professor Rasmussen is guilty only of politically incorrect speech and wrongthink. What he said was empirically true and backed by data but it matters not because it’s blasphemy to the radical left wing religion of female equality and supremacy.

    The way this is supposed to work is that anyone who takes umbrage with Rasmussen’s claims should seek to present counter claims instead of clutching their pearls and demanding he be burned at the stake.

    Lauren Robel is not a provost. She’s a Jewish commissar.

  79. joe862 says:
    @the grand wazoo

    You’re probably right but he has a lot more credibility at Indiana anyway. There are about 15 people left on earth that trust Harvard professors. The same goes for the rest of the ivy leagues. If they’re talking about something that has a political aspect, I ignore them. I assume they’re using their huge brains to promote leftist ideology with subtle dishonesty.

  80. geokat62 says:

    Not all Jewish women are homely though many have a dumpy inbred look.

    I don’t know… she kinda looks like Abe Foxman in drag in this pic:

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  81. old farta says:

    Anybody needing a long drawn out dissertation on IQ, it’s meaning, who has it and who doesn’t is living in a box.

  82. old farta says:

    I wished I could get 2.5 followers by declaring a large portion of American women stink.

  83. Cato says:

    Administrators are almost all cowardly, selfish people, who would like to squelch any kind of research or classroom discussion that would call unwelcome attention. Trustees usually know nothing about higher ed, and rely on the administrators to instruct them. I often go home wondering whether something I said in the classroom will send the SJWs after me.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  84. Cato says:
    @The Alarmist

    Tongue in cheek, I’m sure, but there are too many people who think this way, and they are mostly on the left.

  85. old farta says:

    She has the right to speak. Removing her from a position of power over others, beating her up with reason logic, and comedy would be much more preferable.

  86. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizex"] says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Rodney Dangerfield had no gift for comedy at all, but worked his way to the top.

    That’s why he never got any respect. Baaaaaa da bump!

  87. Anon5000 says:

    The idea that geniuses have low conscientiousness seems ridiculous to me. Newton was not a conscientious worker? Ridiculous.

    • Replies: @Cato
  88. Cato says:

    Richard Lynn argued years ago that innovative thinking required a bit of anti-social orientation. On the 5-factor personality assessment that translates into low on agreeableness and low on conscientiousness. These are also the same dimensions that sociopaths score low on. Suggesting that there is, in fact, a way in which high IQ sociopaths can be beneficial to our civilization.

  89. Miro23 says:

    And to make matters worse, demand does not remain constant, but actually declines, because a woman who works is statistically much less likely to eventually become a wife and mother, and even when she does, she becomes one several years later and has fewer children.

    This one really hurts. Offices full of professional women who 1) have displaced male professional breadwinners 2) are in their late 30’s without a marriage or children. IOW they are facing the wall and are very troubled.
    They could marry down – but the idea of the career was to rise socially and meet the alpha guy who’s not there (sort of do the mirror image of the successful male role).

  90. swamped says:

    Congrats to Prof. Rasmussen for standing his ground in the war of words. If he needs to stand his ground now literally with the howling mob of SJW’s hot on his trail, Indiana is probably as good a place as any (& better than most) to do it. Not only can a victim in mortal danger use deadly force to ward off an attacker in protecting themselves or a third party but just last spring ‘Kystie’s law’ was signed into law, which requires a judge to award attorney’s fees to a defendant if a civil suit is brought unjustly against them; helping to prevent financial losses for individuals using a firearm in defending themselves or others.
    “What has this to do with Provost Robel?” A college campus is like a megachurch. All the parishioners – students & faculty – are expected to sing from the same Woke hymnbook. When someone spouts heresies it is up to the High Priestess to cast him into academic purgatory. Or the Devil take him!

  91. eah says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    Provost Lauren Robel’s statement created a hostile work environment

    This may be worth pursuing; I doubt any other part/aspect of her statement is actionable — recently, Craig Nelsen’s lawsuit against the SPLC came up here on — while the judge declined to dismiss Nelsen’s suit (the SPLC always first tries for dismissal), it was explicitly ruled that the SPLC calling him a “racist” and “neo-Nazi” was protected speech/opinion under the 1st amendment (despite the demonstrable harm caused by the SPLC’s statements) — Robel has already said Rasmusen cannot and will not be fired, so unless he intends to file a lawsuit based on employment law (?), it seems there is little he can do (“Talk to a solid First Amendment lawyer”).

  92. gsjackson says:

    She was an Air Force brat, not wife. Her father was a retired colonel. And I’ll have to insist that she is not of the man-hating strain of feminist, or at least she wasn’t 35 years ago. She’s had many good relationships with men, and they weren’t men of the soy-boy ilk at all. And, you know, as they say about age … it’s a great teacher but a lousy beautician. Lauren was never a looker, but had kind of a becoming slenderness in her 20s, almost qualifying as cute.

    I keep thinking about a droll little joke she once made about a crooked picture on the wall in the law school lobby: “It’s objectively fascist and falling of its own weight.” A stock phrase from her liberal arts days, no doubt. It’s kind of terrifying to think about all the things that might qualify as “objectively fascist” in today’s reign of PC terror.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
  93. @gsjackson

    “But what interests me in particular is her putting on the legal hat and saying it’s not even a close call that the First Amendment prevents public institutions from firing their employees for expressions of opinion.”

    A simple reading of the text of the First Amendment will show that it is a prohibition on Congress, not on anyone else:

    “Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  94. @geokat62

    Hmmmmm…..come to think of it, I’ve never seen her and Abe Foxman in the same room together. Anyone else seen the two of them in the same place at the same time?

    • LOL: geokat62
  95. @Cato

    Do you think that there are too many administrators? I’m wondering whether that is the case. It seems to be true in other industries.

    • Replies: @Cato
  96. gsjackson says:
    @Twodees Partain

    It’s called the incorporation doctrine — applying the Bill of Rights to state and local government. Been around close to 100 years now. See Gitlow v New York.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  97. It’s 2019. This “cancel culture” bullshit has been going on for how long now? Yet the good professor posts a tweet linking to an article called ‘Are Women Ruining Academia?’ and is shocked when the SJW roaming hit squad focuses its jaundiced eye on him. He then writes a long article parsing the nuances of the piece he linked to, almost like he believes these people are genuinely interested in logical argument and fairness. Welcome to 2015 professor!

    It’s difficult to feel much sympathy for him. If he wanted to bait the cancelers for a laugh or to prove a point, crafting his post with plausible deniability in mind would have helped immensely. But he practically painted a big red target on his back with CANCEL ME written in the center.

    • Replies: @eah
  98. Three things:

    1) No one should live in a place that is one-party consent which can only lead to fraud and abuse against the one who is gullible.

    2) The so called pastor looks like a thug and most likely is one… the board that hired him should be dismissed too!

    3) If you claim that you are as good as you say you are then you ought not be fired for expressing a personal bias however unsavory it may be.

    Lastly, as to the women being equal to men in genius, all one can say is that the old Abraham had a problem because through all that inbreeding before him (after all, the 1st father Adam had screwed his own rib) had begotten an Einstein for son but had also been saddled with a butch named Kagan. Now the son was a veritable genius but the man- like daughter thought that she was super smart too, along with the old yenta the mother.

    Now the lusty, er, crusty old Abe didn’t want the haridan to withhold his conjugal rights which she did to get her own way (LaShantique down the street was a cheap option to get his jollies off but he wasn’t sure if that dark attractive damsel was a real woman), so he went along with the mother and daughter duo harangue about the need to make everything equal for both his children, even if that meant mediocrity in the long run…

    So Abraham Moneybags used all his financial clout to screw the world for eternity by pushing the world to accept the dull dike as another Einstein just so that he can get his way with the crafty termagent!

  99. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizey"] says:

    She is a Robel without a Cause.

    • Replies: @Womyn
  100. eah says:

    … and is shocked when the SJW roaming hit squad focuses its jaundiced eye on him.

    I don’t think he — or anyone else — is particularly “shocked” about that.

    Now, not to put words into his mouth, but what he may be “shocked” about is the asinine statement put out by the university provost, which is pretty much indistinguishable from what you might expect from an ‘SJW hit squad’ — which also surprises (if not ‘shocks’) me, and really should evoke the same reaction in everyone, since university provosts should act with more decorum.


  101. Womyn says:

    What a waste of time. I’m sorry you found it necessary to waste your scholarly time on writing a response to justify your bigotry. When it comes to equality, kind sir, your research means nothing.

  102. Womyn says:
    @Global Citizen

    Good lord. Do you entertain yourself?

  103. Durruti says:

    Agree with the totality of your comment.

    For instance, your use of the IQ. Its well known it does nothing to suggest intelligence.

    So called measuring individual intelligence by rating with I Q is so much Zionist World Order divide the People & Nations crap.

    Of course, these charlatans rate Jews as possessing the Highest IQ. Surprise!!! Clue!!!

    The Clues lie all over the bloody body of once productive & honorable Universities.

    News Bulletin:

    As a History Prof, I have taken it upon myself to research and locate the most intelligent Humans on the Planet. I believe they are the Hobbits from the Shire.

    There is only one Race!

    Now, how about helping Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and, concurrently, organizing to Restore Our Republic, that was murdered (along with our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy), in a hail of bullets on November 22, 1963?


  104. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizey"] says:

    Rock and Robel.

    Swiss family Robelson.

    The Robles are there. Set your course for the IU system.

    The Robel Yell.

    Robeling around Indiana.

    Robeling idiot.

    Robeling man. (Stones tune)

    Robeling – like Borking. Let’s use that one!

    Since you asked. Just trying to help.

    • Replies: @Eric Rasmusen
  105. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizey"] says:

    Danger Will Robelson!

    Appropriately spoken by Robbie the Robelot.

    Thank you. No problem.

  106. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizey"] says:

    A Robeling stone gathers no moss.

  107. @dearieme

    @dearieme, you should not talk about a lady like that. Think about deleting.

  108. @Biff

    @Biff, this is both rude and useless. Delete it and replace it with something better.

  109. @Goetz

    Don’t be rude, @Goetz. A gentleman does not talk about a lady’s looks.

  110. Cato says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Compared to 30 years ago, there are proptionally many, many more administrators and staff at US universities. Some say this is driven by the need to comply with an increasing amount of nanny-state regulation. Others say that the increasing use of student loans has created a flow of funds that administrators have used to replicate themselves.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  111. Ahoy says:

    @ geokat62 #83

    The Abe Foxman line excellent!

    The ancient Hellenes used to say “As is the face so is the soul”.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  112. Ahoy says:


    All videos of Rick Wiles in True News went down! And then we are talking about Land of the Free and other tales.

    These people should have never been allowed to enter the University Domain. Their warped thinking is totally focused on the destruction of white man’s civilazation. The Only Human Civilization.

    First they tried this in Russia which they subjucated for 80 years(1917-2000), but then they run into Putin and lost the game.

    Having learned their lesson in Russia they are going to make sure that no Putin happens for Amerca. We are in for much hardship and tears with these people at the helm.

  113. @Cato

    Among companies I’ve dealt with, the general rule is, the greater the cash flow, the more useless, do-nothing positions are added to the payroll. When a bureaucracy is formed, the bureaucrats soon find that they only way they advance while retaining their positions is to get more people working under them.

    • Agree: Cato
  114. TRM says:

    3 points when the average is 100? Is that statistically significant? I’m not a statistician, LOL.

  115. @gsjackson

    “It’s called the incorporation doctrine — applying the Bill of Rights to state and local government. ”

    That’s a fraudulent doctrine enshrined in case law, which is born of another doctrine which is also contrary to the Constitution: stare decisis. That particular little piece of shyster shit allows a single ruling from any judge to assume the force of actual legislation unless or until it is overturned by a higher court. That’s what case law is, stated plainly.

    Attorneys, including judges, have subverted the function of the courts over the decades through several phony doctrines such as these. The Constitution grants the power of legislation to Congress alone. There is no grant of power whatsoever to the judiciary to enact anything even resembling a law.

    Even if that doctrine establishes what you think it does, how does applying the Bill of Rights to state and local governments also make the 1st Amendment binding on a college or an internet forum, or a burger joint?

    • Replies: @Gsjackson
  116. Gsjackson says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Seriously? You’re really doubling down on an error that flagrant in a subject you obviously know nothing about?

    Think back on the probably hundreds of 1st Amendment and other Bill of Rights cases that have come to your attention. Name one where the federal government has been the defendant and an act of Congress is being challenged.

    It’s almost always some branch of state or local government, such as a state university, e.g. Indiana University, or a public high school. Internet forums? Not yet, but stay tuned if they can be successfully characterized as the public square. Burger joints? Not unless it’s owned by the government.

    You are clear, aren’t you, on the most fundamental aspect of constitutional law — that rights are held against government, not private parties?

    Your thoughts on judicial activism would be, let’a say, inchoate.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  117. Lo says:

    All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone, avoiding social media. Here we see 60+ years old professors fighting over broadcasting useless ideas to a world busy watching cat videos.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Global Citizen
  118. eah says:

    Is tenure written into their employment contracts, once granted?

    That’s a good question — searching for the phrase “legal foundation of university tenure” yields some informative and interesting info — perhaps Prof Rasmusen, or someone else employed in academia, can answer: Is there specific legal language around tenure in academic employment contracts?

    Generally, employment in the US is ‘at will’.

    • Replies: @Eric Rasmusen
  119. geokat62 says:

    The ancient Hellenes used to say “As is the face so is the soul”.

    Thanks for sharing, Ahoy. I’ve never heard of that one before.

    I’m beginning to understand why Gilad Atzmon is urging everyone to embrace Athens and distance themselves from Jerusalem.

  120. @Gsjackson

    You’re describing my response as “doubling down on an error” instead of addressing the points. That’s pretty typical shyster behavior. Apparently, law school causes serious cognitive damage among students.

    “You are clear, aren’t you, on the most fundamental aspect of constitutional law — that rights are held against government, not private parties?”

    Yes, I’m clear on the concept. You obviously are not. Most lawyers labor under the same delusion that you exhibit.

    Instead of having a seizure over having your own view of judicial activism questioned, you might do better to do some questioning of your profession. Thanks for showing your ass. I was starting to think that you were one of the sane attorneys posting here. I appreciate learning sooner rather than later that you’re not.

    • Replies: @Gsjackson
    , @Gsjackson
  121. Global Citizen [AKA "Global Citizey"] says:

    All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone, avoiding social media.


    I’m not some freak addicted to contrived moral panics. Unh-unh. Not me. I have free will. There is no way that some tiny dopamine hit generated by making dumb comments could compensate for my sad miserable existence devoid of meaning and value. I do not keep reloading pages to see what effect my wit and wisdom have had on the world at large despite my failure to properly use commas. I have renounced the twin heresies of snark and sperginess.

    I’m not motivated by ego and a desire to crush my foes using cant and rhetoric.


    That said, Prof. Rasmusen is in a battle for his reputation and livelihood. He must fight back. It is smart and good that he places limits on the terms of engagement.

  122. Gsjackson says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Well, if you’re clear that constitutional rights are held against government why would you bother to ask about hamburger joints? If you know anything about constitutional law why would you say in all seriousness that the 1st Amendment applies only to acts of Congress?

    I know you’re not stupid. Why are you so insistent on embarrassing yourself in front of people who know something about the Constitution?

  123. Gsjackson says:
    @Twodees Partain

    OK, let’s set aside your confusions about how con law is currently rendered and address your “points.”

    You seem to have a beef with Marbury v Madison, the 1803 case in which the Supreme Court assumed for itself the right to interpret the Constitution. Fine. Others have thought so. Who do you recommend to interpret it? Or is it so plain on its face that it doesn”t need any interpretation? If that’s the case what’s free speech?

    Given the real world in which we have judicial review, how can there not be stare decisis? Do you think court decisions should have no precedential value? With respect to the incorporation doctrine, do you think that state universities should be able to fire professors for politically incorrect thought and expession, that local police should be able to invade and search your home without any reason, etc., etc.?

    There’s a very intelligent discussion about overreaching judicial activism that’s been going on for decades. There’s no need to be a free agent reinventing the wheel. The constitutional law Bar does not consist of shysters. They are motivated by intellectual stimulation, not money, and you should know what you’re talking about when jumping into their discussions. I recommend starting with the writings of Robert Bork.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  124. Eagle Eye says:

    But what interests me in particular is her putting on the legal hat and saying it’s not even a close call that the First Amendment prevents public institutions from firing their employees for expressions of opinion.

    This only means that Robel HERSELF doesn’t want to be stuck with responsibility for firing Rasmusen. Instead, as other commenters have noted, she is clearly angling for others to make up complaints.

    Robel is saying to her underlings: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

  125. Attention. Attention. Your attention please.

    Dr. Rasmusen has been awarded the Robel prize in Micro Aggression Economics.

    He will receive a micro payment of 10 cents.

  126. @gsjackson

    So her father was a retired colonel but she still doesn’t have the empirical world view, and still feels a strong motivation to destroy men, if not like her father (who knows his views) then of his general generation.

    I am getting tired of the conservative gestures to someone being a nice person. Yes, Chairman Mao according to Kissinger and Nixon was quite charming in person.

    It doesn’t matter if she is a nice person, or she looked more like a foal and less like a hog in her youth.

    She is a digusting pulsating SJW who is attempting to have one of the very, very last endangered conservative academics destroyed for his political view points and thoughts. He has done precisely nothing, except tell truths that she doesn’t want to acknowledge, so she is trying to remove him from his position, have his books and ideas discredited and obliterated, have him impoverished and disqualified from further work, have him on the streets and probably his family immiserated.

    She can go to hell. Her past doesn’t justify her present odiousness.

    She should be fired. Her life should be made as unpleasant and difficult as the circumstances she is attempting to inflict on people who hold an empirical world view.

    ‘Her’ ideas should be banned, rendered anathema. ‘She’ should be hounded and vilified, and her capacity to speak taken from her.

    ‘She’ should be on the streets, experiencing the diversity which she loves so much – I understand they’ll rape her just for the principle, not ‘obviously’ out of any sense of attraction.

    These people who are destroying this country and trying to destroy the good, the beautiful and the true need to understand that if they attempt to do so they will experience the same kind of pain that they are purporting to inflict on others.

    Dialectic is a complete waste of time for these apparatchiks. It is a complete and total waste of time. The economic dynamics described above are readily apparent to anyone who cares to pay attention. And it doesn’t matter one single jot.

    Rhetoric is the only way forward. It’s all they respond to. It’s all their shrivelled desicatted petty vengeful tiny minds are capable of processing.

    Let this ugly pig experience what she sought to inflict on a man stating truth, and then maybe, just maybe, she will hesitate to tell lies and to seek to destroy other people’s lives. Maybe then she will show charity and justice.

    Theodore Beale said it best about Ben Shapiro – no one would ever endorse violence even in Minecraft. But one day, someone who has had everything taken from them for telling the truth is going to decide that they no longer have anything left to lose. They’ll pen a really reprimanding letter in Minecraft.

    It doesn’t matter if this pillock has a few anecdotes. She is a vicious ideologue attempting to destroy someone for telling the truth.

    The same applies to Erika Lee.

    Conservatives are dying. Civility, and homosexual libertarian liberal social democractic zionism is not going to be the animating purpose of whatever replaces it going forward.

    Robel is going to kill that university – she should be fired, and she shouldn’t be hired anywhere else, because SJW’s never change.

    She should learn to code.

    These people will happily reside over mass incarcerations and murder of people who they politically disagree if given half the chance. They can rationalise absolutely everything, because they are midwits who are capabled of doing so, but lacking the extra blocs of intelligence necessary to understand the ramifications.

  127. @Global Citizen

    Thank you for your suggestions. I think the provost is de-escalating, but if it turns out I’m wrong, they might be useful. She called off a denunciation meeting scheduled for Friday, though, so I emailed to thank her and tell her I didn’t really want to become Jordan Peterson.

  128. @eah

    As I understand it, employer codes and statements of how they will treat workers are effectively incorporated in the contracts, at least if workers join the company while the employer statement is there. In effect, it is part of the job offer. Most employment is “at will”, which means you can be fired without cause, but even there, it may be that while you are employed the employer must abide by the terms they have volunteered.
    Thus, universities must abide by the promotion to tenure rules they have in place, as well as the tenure rules. All those are contractually enforceable. A university cannot suddenly say that in the case of Assistant Professor Smith they are going to add a lot more accomplishments to get tenure than they state in the faculty handbook, or wait 10 years insetad of 6.

  129. gsjackson says:

    Oh Dear God, did I actually say something kind about the constitutional law Bar? After seeing those specimens they brought in to have at Trump, it’s all but unthinkable. Yes, some of them are motivated by intellectual stimulation, and none is in it for the money, but the primary motivation of many of them is the destruction of the American republic.

  130. Eric Rasmussen is a study in courage as well as being an excellent writer and intelligent man. The bull dyke attacking him, not so much.

  131. I feel for you Professor. Universities are liberal hell-holes, and the abundance of hysterical and emotional women is substantially responsible for that.

    >Geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness.

    If you would like to know about WHY that is, the outlier phenomenon has to do with X linked inheritance and something called pseudo-dominance. In short, it makes rarer phenotypes, including outlier intelligence, much more common phenotypically in males. In addition, the effect of androgens, especially during fetal development, leads to more of that systematizing, low emotion, and low agreeableness which you need to break the consensus to pursue truth. Here is a free book which goes into great detail about the evidence for this:

  132. @JessicaR

    Some men, simply “don’t give a damn.” If I could issue a prime directive – #1 from here on in all men are to resign from universities and colleges, and high schools and primary schools.

    Why do we care what women believe? Most think what they believe. Women’s studies. Women’s rights. Women’s liberation. Birth control. Abortion. Alimony. Single parenting. One day their beliefs will come home to roost. Then society will need more parental leave. More dildos. More family counselling. More artificial insemination. More and more immigration to underwrite their demands.

    So men, why work, forget university. Women can invent, innovate, manufacture, and create to their hearts content. Who needs designer kitchens? …Wives who look like Barbie Dolls? Upscale neighbourhoods? Botoxed, face lifted, butt lifted, emancipated automatons; pronouncing the latest Marxist demands for some impossible to achieve uniformity.

    Men can retire to their books, turn off the TV, buy bicycles, hike into the woods, buy a canoe, ditch the expensive SUV, dump the ski chalet, leave the upward mobility treadmill, forget government, seek out communities of like minded innovators who understand the power of downsizing while build a technological homestead. In short abdicate. Home school your children. …I mean teach them both theory, say their times tables — and the practical, build a raft and a tree house with them. Teach them their ABCs — the letter names and their sounds — and have the write stories about things they observe and have them reflect on their creative experiences. Sing songs, play an instrument. Teach them to extract technologies from a box of parts; servos, discarded hard drives, old motors and leave them alone once in a while. Teach them martial arts; inspired by the Shaolin monks.

    Teach them the science of cooking. Use technological knowledge and the scientific method. Teach them to synthesize rather than to rationalize — as in rationalizing the means of production. Teach them there is a higher order of cooperation than the forced cooperation of Marxism.

    Marxism is a dead end. Never argue with a Marxist. Just walk away. Let ‘em have the universities. They no longer fulfil their original function; attracting the curious. Universities used to be a refuge from the received. Think here Leiden in the 17th Century. Try to look at your University with fresh eyes. …Walk away. Those women who have figured out for themselves just how tyrannical the modern university has become will walk away too.

    Forget the Frankfort school. See it for what it is! Walk away. Use your common sense, your brain. Shed the received. Forget tenure. Trash the credentials. Walk away. The possibilities are beyond our imaginations. Use your three brains; mind, body, and emotions in harness — unified as they were meant to be used. Get out of your gated community. Get out of Georgetown. Get out of uptown.
    Forget the ballot box. Vote with your mind, your body, and your emotions.

    Forget left, forget right — just walk away. Have courage. Do not worry about what others think. It’s not thinking. It is just the brain recycling the received. Do you really care which team wins the Super Bowl. Stand on the broad shoulders of what went before and forge a new world right here. There is nowhere to run, hide, or to emigrate. Forget the received. Can you do it or are you trapped by either affirming or denying.

    Walk away. Reconciling is extraordinarily liberating. And energizing. Reconcile yourself to the reality that subordinating yourself to dead processes is buying your own bars. Break out of your gilded cage.

    Build your own raft and wave the conventionally received behind. Women are not liberated — they wanted inside the gilded cage. Let ‘em have it.

    Of course only a few people ever just walk away. They prefer the safety of the walls, bars, and their gilded cages. Misery loves company.

    Just say “you know your right” and next day just walk away. The more people who just walk away, the sooner the entire artificial construct will collapse. Trust me, you won’t starve.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Rasmusen Comments via RSS
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement