Newsletter

September 2025

Whither the University?

Kris Larsen

A review of Michael J Robillard J and Timothy J Gordon, \emph{Don’t Go
To College: A Case for Revolution;~}Washington DC, Regnery Publishing,
2022 (Hardcover, 243 pages)

It is easy to assume that the authors of~\emph{Don’t Go To College: A
Case for Revolution}~(2022) would be anti-intellectuals who never
darkened a university’s doors, and are envious of anyone who did. Ah,
but not so fast. Michael J Robillard and Timothy J Gordon were in “the
belly of the beast” as students, and Robillard even taught at Notre
Dame, Oxford, and the United States Naval Academy. Both men have PhDs,
plus two Masters for Robillard, and a Masters and~\emph{Juris~}Doctor
for Gordon.~The latter, a devout Roman Catholic, recently taught in a
Catholic high school in his native California, and even became the
theology department chairman before running afoul of the woke
totalitarians, who, for good measure, had him fired after he spoke out
against the domestic terrorism running rampant in American cities during
the summer of 2020.~ ~ ~

The authors make a compelling case that university is unsuitable for
some (by no means all), with rationales ranging from the practical to
the woke. They stress that university retards maturity by delaying such
commitments as marriage, parenthood, permanent employment, and other
adult responsibilities. And high tuition fees, augmented by room and
board, books, and student union costs create high debt burdens which
supplement the difficulties for those who leave or finish university,
only to find themselves unemployed or underemployed, and, as such, in a
poor financial position to take on spousal and parental
responsibilities.~~

Adding insult to injury, Robillard and Gordon also discuss the safe
spaces and trigger warnings that shield students from “offensive”
speech and leave them ill prepared for the adversity and challenges that
await them in the “real world”.~ ~~

Unfortunately, the case against university attendance extends to the
pernicious, starting, but by no means ending, with campus DIE~
(Diversity, Inclusion and Equity) bureaucracies. Individual merit is of
no consequence, and subordinated to race, gender, “gender identity”,
and sexual orientation. Did I forget anything? Oh yes, we can only
achieve “equity” (translation: equality of outcome) if we abolish
capitalism and Western civilization, which DIE enthusiasts claim to be
“racist”, “white supremacist”, “colonialist”, “xenophobic”,
“genocidal”, etc. In essence, we have Marxism through a group identity
lens.~~

Furthermore, this “leftist monoculture” (thank you, Julie Ponesse)
extends to the professoriate. Indeed, the authors produce data
supporting this claim, courtesy of a National Association of Scholars
2020 report showing Democrat professors outnumbering their Republican
counterparts in “leading {[}American{]} institutions of higher
education” 9:1. The ratio increases to 11:1 for young professors, 16:1
for female professors, 42:1 for those in~ Anthropology faculties, and
27:1 for members of English departments. Hatred of Western civilization
is a recurring theme with students likewise indoctrinated, or so the
authors compellingly argue. No wonder so many students are “woke” by
the time they leave university (and K to 12 didn’t exactly immunize
them). Oh the joys of “consciousness raising”, where students are
indoctrinated into the “virtues” of DIE, globalism, rule by experts,
and fifteen minute cities. By contrast, nationalism, localism, and the
grassroots are not to be tolerated.~ ~ ~

It is not much better in the STEM fields, where the authors tell us that
“scientism” (which they define as the “Marxification of science”)
has gained ground at the expense of science. They quote one professor as
saying that math is “dominated by whiteness and racism” (p 54). And
there are even scientists at universities who claim that a man can be a
woman and a woman can be a man, even though~XX\emph{~}cannot
equal~XY. Last but by no means least, Robillard and Gordon reference
Chinese communist penetration in the STEM fields, where People’s
Republic of China apologists are reportedly easy to find and often
richly remunerated (hello Charles Lieber).~ ~

What to do? Not everyone is interested in university, but they attend,
despite a skilled-labour shortage in America (equally evident in
Canada). Indeed, the authors quote a~\emph{Forbes~}article by Sarah
Chamberlain, who points out that “{[}r{]}oads, highways, bridges, dams,
harbors, water systems, and airports have been neglected or only
marginally repaired in the last twenty years” (p. 82).

Additionally, Canada and the United States have rich oil and natural gas
reserves. The US seems to be returning to its senses with incoming
President Trump’s “drill baby drill” pledge, and we can only hope that
Canadians replace the “watermelons” with a fossil-fuel friendly
government sooner rather than later. Then plumbers, pipe fitters,
welders, etc. will be in even higher demand and will make good livings
“in the patch”. Their futures will be more secure than those pursuing
university degrees with limited and less lucrative prospects that may
not align with their interests or aptitudes. Furthermore, two year
community college diplomas in the trades, plus lower annual tuition
fees, means substantially less student loan debt.~~

Even those seeking intellectual fulfillment and learning for its own
sake may still circumvent university. Gordon and Robillard suggest
picking an area of interest and doing a great deal of relevant reading
on one’s own time. This can be an overview or
specialization. Let’s say someone chooses Western philosophy. Will it be
a survey history or an in-depth study of one or two philosophers?

But while all of this is well and good, others may need formal structure
to remain disciplined. Also, a degree is documented intellectual
achievement — unlike the informal learning cited above. Additionally,
academic interests may germinate in university and become a lifelong
passion — something that would never have been on one’s radar had he
not attended university.~

Nevertheless, the authors agree that formally pursuing knowledge for its
own sake is important to many, but believe universities, on the whole,
have abandoned their true purpose: specifically, understanding the world
by reading the great works of the Western canon, debating the great
truths, and seeking intellectual and moral development, all of which may
require the intellectually committed to read extensively beyond course
syllabi. To their credit, Robillard and Gordon also concede that such
professions as medicine, engineering, and law require higher academic
education.~ ~

But woke faculty are not let off the hook. Students are encouraged to
challenge their professors’ arguments, write op-ed letters to the
student newspaper, and become activists on campus. So far, so good, but
we must take issue with the authors’ suggestions to impugn professors’
reputations by calling them anti-white racists or anti-Judeo Christian
bigots, as this petty name calling subordinates rational counterargument
to the baser instincts. And demanding they be harassed, intimidated
and/or fired violates their freedom of expression rights, makes the
anti-woke no better than their woke cancel-culture neo-Marxist
adversaries, and violates freedom’s principles. This is also reminiscent
of the scene in~\emph{Men With Brooms}~when Juggernaut asks one of his
mates, “Do you really want to win this way?”~ ~

Robillard and Gordon are on more solid ground when they suggest turning
the tables by criticizing the left’s icons, even for their personal
failures. This can be accomplished without slandering their professors,
and so much the better if there is room for biting ridicule. For
example, many are familiar with the joke about Justin Trudeau being
Fidel Castro\textquotesingle s biological son — a cute touch given
JT\textquotesingle s Marxist sensibilities and fawning fangirl adoration
of the late Cuban despot.

Yet more is the pity that the authors didn’t pick a better example than
Martin Luther King and his alleged sexual indiscretions. Judging people
“by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin”
makes Dr King a relic of a bygone era, and no hero for the woke. After
all, his quote might be perceived as being closely intertwined with that
beastly “Eurocentric” merit principle. Besides, why glorify the
individual when people can be lionized or impugned based on their race,
colour, gender, or sexual orientation?~~

By contrast, when it comes to personally attacking the left’s icons,
there is no better bullseye than Karl Marx. He rarely took a bath,
reeked to high heaven, had boils all over his body, had a “love child”
with the family maid, used the n-word to describe a son-in-law, earned
very little money, and was a chronic moocher. Then there was his Satanic
poetry (see Paul Kengor’s,~\emph{The Devil and Karl Marx,~}2020).

In summing up, it is impossible to agree with everybody about everything
all the time, and~\emph{Don’t Go To College~}is no exception. It is
nevertheless a valuable contribution to the fight against wokeness,
whether by avoiding university altogether, or attending but pushing back
against the dominant orthodoxy. After all, it is an historic fact that
some keep pushing until there is resistance, which means a future even
worse than our present if these bullies aren’t nipped in the bud. Kudos
to Gordon and Robillard for standing for freedoms we have long taken for
granted and too often seem unwilling to defend. They have tremendous
courage.~

\emph{Kris Larsen (\href{mailto:larsenke57@gmail.com}{\nolinkurl{larsenke57@gmail.com}}) is a Danish English Baptist
settler and a retired Nova Scotia civil servant with a background in
adult education and social services. He and his wife, Lynne Bryant – an
Irish Scottish Polish German Anglican settler and retired social worker
– live in rural Nova Scotia. Lynne and Kris are members~of a “fringe
minority”, hold “unacceptable views”, and “take up space”.}