Connect with us

Education

Finny Kuruvilla on modern educational goals

Published

on

Finny Kuruvilla on modern educational goals

The people most likely to believe the higher education system in the United States is good are either liberals or educators. They see the liberal indoctrination and the focus away from preparing students for the world and have no problem with it. As long as they get people thinking the same way, their well-being and preparedness are secondary.

Finny Kuruvilla thinks differently and he’s doing something about it. He will be opening Sattler College next year with $30 million of his own money to fund it. The school will be geared towards conservative Christian students and is opening in, of all places, Boston. Kuruvilla graduated from Harvard.

One of his quips in a recent interview is quite profound:

“The whole notion of education has become generally confined to academic thought, not so much to developing of the whole person, character, and integrity.”

We’ll be watching this school closely once it opens.

Source: Boston Globe

New college for conservative Christians planned in Boston – The Boston Globe

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/24/new-college-for-conservative-christians-planned-boston/Ur6XXwLz98NYmadpzljWvN/story.htmlIn a city full of colleges and in an economy increasingly perilous for small schools, one wealthy businessman is making an unlikely investment. Next fall he will open a college in Boston geared toward conservative Christian students, using an innovative model that incorporates online learning.

Sattler College, named after a 16th century martyr, will be entirely funded by Finny Kuruvilla, an investment fund manager with a medical degree and a PhD from Harvard. He has guaranteed $30 million of his money to fund the school.

Former Honda engineer turned stay-at-home papa. Teeth model (yes, really). Former Republican. Now a Federalist.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Darby

    December 25, 2017 at 11:43 pm

    He’ll get as much support as Trump does from the RINO establishment. Good luck to him. I hope he can find more donors. He should have based it somewhere where it would be appreciated. Who is John Galt?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Education

Feminists exploiting feminists

Published

on

Feminists exploiting feminists

Are you an entrepreneur interested in “birthing a new business” and making more money?

Are you a feminist looking to “contemplate capitalism” and “write your manifesto”?

Are you in search of ways to create “body-loving business practices”?

Are you dedicated to “toppling the patriarchy”?

Do you have $1200 to throw away?

If you answered yes to all these questions, you’re in luck! The Feminist Business School welcomes you!

What is the Feminist Business School, might you ask? Is it a business school? No. Is it a school? No. Does it provide its attendees business skills, such as book-keeping? No. Rather, the Feminist Business School is the brain child of (capitalist) entrepreneur Jennifer Armbrust, an Evergreen graduate with a degree in Critical Theory: it currently offers a single, $1200 course, taught by Armbrust, entitled “Concepts and Conceptions.” During this eight-week course, students will contemplate capitalism, which Armbrust believes is masculine, and introduce students to the “feminine economy,” which Armbrust defines as “A new set of values and a redistribution of money and power, based on feminine principles.” Weekly topics include Free Yourself from the Myth of the Meritocracy (Letting It Be Easy), The Trimester Theory: Stages of Birthing a Business, and Toppling the Patriarchy.

During a 20-minute CreativeMornings speech at the Portland Art Museum in 2015, on the theme of Revolution, Jennifer Armbrust shunned capitalism for its “masculine” points of emphasis, such as “speed and efficiency.” Her audience clapped in approval. Contrary to capitalism, says Armbrust, the feminine economy focuses on “mindfulness,” “generosity,” and an “abundance consciousness.” For this reason, it is important to birth a feminist business.

Armbrust provided her audience with a brief sampling of her own manifesto, entitled “100 Ways to Make More Money: Proposals for the Feminine Economy.” Armbrust assured the room, “And I absolutely believe the things on this list will make you richer, and in some ways, I think that’s the same as having more money.” Oh, and Mr. Armbrust made sure to state that her manifesto is available for purchase on her website. Included on her list are:

#3. Create more opportunities for people to give you money;

#16. Have no expectations;

#24. Read Karl Marx;

#52. Visualize money as water;

#68. Practice radical receptivity;

#77. Say no to work you don’t believe in; and

#79. See fiscal empowerment as a revolutionary act.

Perhaps sensing that the crowd had noticed the obvious – that she is a capitalist entrepreneur and that her feminine economy is very much a free market economy – Ms. Armbrust insisted otherwise. Not only is the feminine economy not a capitalist economy, it should not be considered a type of conscious capitalism either. No, insisted Armbrust, the feminine economy is completely different. And so, all of you future enrollees, you can rest assured that the Feminist Business School will provide you with the moral justification (for your own capitalist entrepreneurship), as well as the virtue-signaling credentials for which you long. Best of luck!

Continue Reading

Education

Setting the stage for 2018: Figuring out our allies and opponents

Published

on

Setting the stage for 2018 Figuring out our allies and opponents

Before we started deciding on the rules of the game, figuring out how to define the terms of the battle, we should first identify what freedom actually means to us and who or what stands in the way. That may sound rather like an obvious point, but at least in part, who or what we view as an obstacle is a good reflection of what it is we think we are protecting. If we are familiar with the basics of the Constitution, this should be relatively simple. Freedom is the freedom from government interference, and in generally, the ability to live, prosper, and pursue happiness so long as our actions do not infringe on the rights of others. By that token the obstacles to freedom are:

  1. Government interference
  2. Anything that stands in the way of life, liberty, prosperity, and pursuit of happiness – such as security threats, economic problems, crime, or natural disasters.
  3. People who are willfully promoting government interference with our lives or facilitate the security threats or other obstacles.

Most people would likely not have an issue with any of the above, not even the “villains” as we may perceive. The differences will usually either vary as to the degree to which others oppose those 3 items, or the interpretations. Then there is a group of people who is simply not familiar with the Constitution or the history of the United States, and may claim that the they think the First Amendment should have limitations, etc. In sum and substance, however, they are no different from people who are more familiar with the issues and formulate their interpretations in a more informed and deliberate way.

Now, there are many reasons why people may choose to adopt a different level of what they find personally acceptable under either of those three categories. We can spend hours going through them, but the worst case scenario is that we are facing an ideological adversary, who is pining for a society with very little freedom and is determined to destroy society as we know it. The other two categories of people to worry about: benevolent but deluded “fellow travelers” who firmly wish for everyone to live well, but essentially at some point check common sense at the door, and people who are so zealous about being perceived as freedom lovers than in pursuit of freedom and in opposition to the adversarial elements and “useful idiots”, become very much like them.

Besides those three groups, there exists a great number of people with highly complex and individualized views on various issues, who either don’t fit neatly into any boxes, or fall somewhere in between, or vacillate among different groups.  This is why the fight  for freedom is more complicated than we would like to admit. There often are no clear answers on who is an ally or an absolute adversary, because most people do not think in absolutes, contrary to the polarized views we are presented with in social media. So how do we deal with the ambiguity? How do we winnow out the absolute “enemies”, diffuse the fellow travelers, and win over everyone else?

The “Enemies”

The hardcore ideologues are usually firm in their convictions, aggressive, and politically astute. They do not care about the sacrifices they have to make in order to reach their goal. They may be revolutionary, but more often than not, they are revolutionary, understanding that it takes time to win over supporters without the use of political violence. They may implicitly or explicitly support or instigate violence, which we have seen some evidence of on campuses, but that tactic is a culmination of decades of relatively peaceful activism and brainwashing. The ideologues are usually the professors, not the students. Some of them are older and old-school, and have been “assets” of the Communist party, anarchists, and other movements. They make common cause with other radical movements, but they are patient, venomous, vengeful, and they understand how to use power. They are the true “haters”, who may be quite familiar with the history of the revolutions, and yet fully embrace the mentality and goals anyway. On the other end of this spectrum are the cynical manipulators who may not much believe in hard leftist or socialist ideologies, but who understand that these ideologies are a perfect vehicle to power, and it is ultimately the power and the control that they crave.

Such people are completely amoral, at least somewhat sociopathic, and view the means as justifying the ends just as much as the ideologues – but the ends for them are purely personal gain. I bet there may be an aggregation of data on professors, think tank members, public intellectuals, journalists, and others who belong to either of these categories, but if not, such individuals are easily discernible and those who are around them should be encouraged to be aware of them, their tactics, and their goals. Situational awareness is key part to preparation. These guys need to be rooted out, and their ideology debunked and delegitimized. In 99% of the cases, they are not going to come to a sudden miraculous revelation or realization of all the wrong that they did. The best outcome is that one day such mentality is marginalized, and anyone who follows it becomes socially unacceptable, and part of the fringe with no influence, no different from the Nazis. How is that achieved?

First, by raising awareness among target groups.

Second, by immunizing them against the worst tactics.

Third, by arming them with tools to combat the influence of such people – including development of critical thinking skills, a buddy system, where you have witnesses at every confrontation to prevent he said-she said situations and smear campaigns, record keeping, understanding the systems and the vulnerabilities within these systems that strengthen or are exploited by such individuals, developing the flexibility and the resilience to develop appropriate responses, and to recover from losses.

Workshops and training are excellent ways to develop and practice such skills. Remember, however, most of such battles are going to be in uncontrolled environments where many of these individuals will have an upper hand, control of the turf, and frequently, the element of surprise. That is why data about the presence of such people and their record is essential for advance preparation, and the more confident people can later choose these confrontations at their leisure. But the first stage will be much more like responding to asymmetrical warfare than a controlled strategy. The only unifying factor here is that most of such people will be in some position of power in areas where they are best position to promote ideologies or narratives adversarial to the US Constitution, culture, the idea of freedom, or Western society..

The ultimate goal should be to develop a system of first identifying and tracking such people, and second to exposing and eliminating them. These two could also be done simultaneously, but in the initial stages, information gathering should be separated from the action plan for reasons of developing a working strategy and expertise.

The Fellow Travelers

The fellow travels MAY be in a position of power, but more often than not, they are not “professional” ideologues, just people of all backgrounds with strongly held worldviews who act like political hacks or rebels, but firmly believe they are doing it for the good of the society they live in. They may not necessarily want a “fundamental” transformation, but their general arguments are a slippery slope, poorly thought out, and will eventually bring about a fundamental transformation, eating them along the way, much to their surprise.

The younger, revolutionary students and cultural warriors are likely manipulated by more experienced figures, and usually are predisposed to that either through family background, and early education, or various psychological vulnerabilities.  More often than not such people are looking for something meaningful to do, but may not put the hard work of researching and understanding their options. They may latch on to whatever “feels” good, even if it completely contradicts their values system or lifestyle (i.e. the largely meaningless Occupy Wall Street movement). Keep in mind that much more cynical forces can co-opt and infiltrate grassroots movements. But those forces belong to the above-described category and should be considered separately.

The activists more likely than not find facts, reason, and logic unconvincing, but emotionally appealing narratives that visually and experientially combat their preconceptions can work. Many of these kids mean well, even if they are confused and unaffected, so getting into big fights with them in public may be successful in mocking them and shutting down an annoying discussion, but will not break through their individual perspectives. However, people who are taught to hate a particular group or groups for the sake of helping some other perceived victim could be responsive to an invitation to dinner by a seemingly neutral person and exposure to kind individuals on a gradual basis. An alternative way to the same effect is organized, highly structured outreach effort that gives them reasons to join some worthwhile cause or movement before they are co-opted by stronger forces, maybe in high school rather than college, and simply channel their energy into something productive.

Keep in mind, most of such activists have no solid comprehensive history of the underpinnings of all these movements. They may be highly uneducated and ignorant of the source texts and earlier battles. Or they will have read the pop culture version of whatever it is they are proclaiming. Their worldviews may be fluid and easily confused. Interesectionality and increasingly more radical and bizarre views on transgenderism, various social norms, identity politics, and cultural relativism has to do with a lack of formal structure, expectation of discipline or boundaries, and basically a strong yearning to explore a sense of identity, but without any firm anchors or legitimate contexts for doing so. Whether this becomes a passing phase of belated teenage rebellion or something much more serious depends on how the people around them help them deal with it.  Neither mockery, nor aggressive response, nor unchallenged facilitation of what, in many cases appears to be little more than a desperate cry for attention coupled with confused paradigms, and poor manners will resolve the problem.

The adult/mature “fellow travelers” are a slightly different breed. They are likely to be more socially established, pursue more reasonable life paths and goals, and act “traditional” in many ways, yet have been reacting with excessive anger to recent political developments, and otherwise act like political hacks a lot of the time, refusing to admit even obvious facts that run counter to their worldview, arguing about increasingly absurd wedge issues, and hairsplittng when it is obvious that they are wrong, or using mountains of one-sided studies in lieu of well-thought out arguments.  Despite a general sense of exasperation, it is not hopeless to move them in a more reasonable direction. The very fact that they are willing to engage in discourse and risk being exposed for being wrong is a positive sign, and excessive defensiveness and movement away from such discussions into more comfortable echo chambers will do more harm than good.

Engaging in discussions, finding points of commonalities, identifying common humanity, and continuing to provoke thought with exposure to additional information is the best way to address this problem. Some minds may change on some issues some of the time. There is certainly no guarantee of anything, but so long as people can find in themselves to like and respect at least something about each other, and at least enough to stay in the discussion, all hope is not lost.

Everybody Else

Some of the best political advice I have ever gotten (and it was from Arnold Steinberg) was to maintain a broad tent, and to form alliances based on specific issues, despite all differences on other fronts. You don’t need to have a base of ideological purists, and most people will have some reasonable differences among themselves, evolve in their views, vacillate, and so forth.  It is ok to work with them or to discuss with them the one or two things you may have in common, rather than to frustrate oneself over the inability to find “enough” allies, who are close to you on most issues.  Flexibility is key to winning ideological battles, and not all battles will be won with the same people.

But before categorizing everyone you know under particular labels, start with yourself. The central part of winning any war is knowing yourself and where you stand on specific issues, and why. Remember, just as much as you are struggling to identify your future teammates, as well as the forces that may try to stop you, others will be doing the same to you. How open are you to having your mind changed and on what issues? What is a matter of principle for you, and what does not get you excited, no matter how important you think it should be? Only you know the answers to these questions, and only you ultimately define the kind of personal battle you are going to be fighting, though each battle, will, of course, be a part of a much bigger war.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The apostasy of 2 Lutheran colleges

Published

on

The apostasy of Lutheran colleges

The acclaimed Lutheran colleges in Minnesota, Concordia College in Moorehead near Fargo, North Dakota, and St. Olaf in Northfield are both known for their schools of music and their respected musical ensembles. I saw the Concordia Choir twice in 2012, and in 2017. I also got a chance to see the St. Olaf Orchestra for the first time in 2017, and man these future musicians can play with the best of them. If you never saw any of these ensembles live, they will knock your socks off if you seek quality music.

With that said, I do have to point out the dominating apostasy in these colleges and how far they have strayed from its Lutheran protestant roots and more toward a worldly progressive theology. Both colleges are affiliated with the misnamed Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which has radically gone far left ever since it approved of homosexuality clergy and same sex marriages in 2009. Since the formation of the ELCA in 1988, there were four different splits from the denomination in attempts to salvage the Gospel while not embracing the theology and doctrine of the more conservative bodies of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).

Still, with Concordia (Moorehead) and St. Olaf in fellowship with the ELCA, the apostasy within those colleges was allowed to creep and eventually take over. These colleges both have respected choirs with the same signature piece: “Fairest Lord Jesus/Beautiful Savior.” However, there is a dark side to these acclaimed schools. Looking at the breakdown of the student body of St. Olaf, 43 percent claims to be Christian (Lutheran and otherwise), 42 percent claims to be either “no preference or unknown” or “Non-Christian.” The ELCA’s quest of unity at all costs is only marginalizing the real saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, and is only dividing people who not only hold a Biblical worldview but those who are sympatric to them.

In a December 8, 2017 article in The Daily Wire, they point out how Concordia’s Student Government Association voted 28-2 to rescind their financial support for an on-campus visit and speech of the online publication’s editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro. Their reason?

HERE WE GO AGAIN: Concordia College Leftists Try To Rescind Funding For Shapiro’s Speech

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24439/here-we-go-again-concordia-college-leftists-try-daily-wireWhereas there has been outcry from Concordia’s student body (Student Government Association’s constituents) regarding the allocation of $7,080 to Young Americans for Freedom to assist in the cost of bringing Ben Shapiro to Concordia, and whereas Student Government Association’s constituents have asserted that Student Government Association should be dedicated to supporting its underrepresented and marginalized students and the greater goal of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion at Concordia; and whereas Student Government Association’s constituents have asserted that Ben Shapiro’s harmful messages targeting LGBTQ+ communities and other marginalized identities is in direct opposition to the dedication of Concordia and Student Government Association to support diversity, equity, and inclusion from all backgrounds and identities, therefore, be it resolved the resolution of $7,080 allocated to Young Americans for Freedom on the Senate meeting of November 30th, 2017 be rescinded.

Your typical leftist claptrap of diversity, equity and inclusion at all costs. That also includes compromising what God has commanded to be an abomination. The Young Americans for Freedom chapter at Concordia responded to this rescindment:

LEFTIST TOLERANCE: Concordia College Student Government Rescinds Funding For Shapiro Appearance

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24463/leftist-tolerance-concordia-college-student-daily-wireAll the YAF chapter at Concordia wants is for SGA to help offset the cost of bringing a conservative speaker to campus. Instead they compromise their integrity and call for a rescinding of the vote due to vocal opposition from students on campus not one week after we received partial funding. Bringing Ben Shapiro to campus would be a sign from Concordia College that they value intellectual and political diversity and that they care about the marginalized and underrepresented conservative voices on campus.

The reality is that they don’t want these conservative voices because they want be on the side of “love,” and that means we love our LGBTQ friends and we don’t tell them that they need to repent of their abomination against a Holy God. You love the same sex, your sexually attracted to the same sex and you know it is so unfair and so ancient to call homosexuality a sin, so we are going to change that and fight for your right to be accepted as part of the LGBTQ community.

We would hope that other Christians would see that our cause is just. Some just might, but God himself and his Holy Word stay the same. He calls it an abomination then and still calls an abomination now. Those who sympathize with these right-wing Christians (Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew) must be marginalized and demoralized. For the record, Concordia invited Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King in January of the very same year.

The “Exposing the ECLA” blog published a post on December 4, 2017 that exposes the depravity that St. Olaf has become. They point out key pages at St. Olaf’s website allowing its readers (without surfing around for them) to see how far they strayed from God’s Word and what he commands for his people. For instance, at their wellness center they offer sexual health information that would go against God’s Word to abstain from sexual activity until marriage. St. Olaf has also been sympathetic to the cause of civil rights for the LGBTQ since 1989:

The Depravity of St. Olaf College

https://www.exposingtheelca.com/exposed-blog/the-depravity-of-st-olaf-collegeSt. Olaf College is a school of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). It is a private liberal arts college located in Northfield, Minnesota. Many parents send their children to St. Olaf believing they will be going to a Christian college and will learn about the Christian faith, deepening their faith with godly teachers leading the way.

This could not be further from the truth. As is evident in this entire website, the ELCA has turned its back on the truth and the authority of Scripture, and when you take a look at this ELCA-affiliated institution, it is easy to surmise that St. Olaf College has done the same.

Other sites have shown their support of Planned Parenthood, transgenderism, and inclusion of other non-Judeo-Christian faiths such as Islam. With that inclusion, they sympathize with Palestine and the demise of Israel (even if Martin Luther had his issues with the Jewish people in this life). The politics of St. Olaf is just as far left as your typical mainstream liberal arts campus. Open communist Angela Davis was brought to St. Olaf to give a speech, and conservative students at St. Olaf have reportedly been threatened with violence by the much greater progressive student body majority. St. Olaf’s race relations are also quite sour, as proved in in the Spring of 2017 when the college had to deal with civil unrest protests.

Parents if you are a Christian, especially if you also call yourself Lutheran and attend a more conservative or level-headed Christ-seeking Lutheran, church and are looking for a Lutheran liberal arts college for your child, I would urge you to not send them to Concordia (Moorehead) or St. Olaf. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod operates 10 universities under the Concordia University System, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has affiliated with Wisconsin Lutheran College out of Milwaukee.

Even if you are not attending a Lutheran church associated with LCMS or WELS and are part of a Lutheran domination that recently broke away from the ELCA, I still would recommend looking to Lutheran colleges and universities that are not affiliated with the ELCA. The spiritual well-being of your child may depend on it. That is more important than their two or three years (maybe four if it’s their orchestras) of fame in their famous music ensembles. The ELCA and its colleges and universities have abandoned Lutheran Christianity for a worldly progressive religion.

This article was first posted in The Christian Post.

References

Bringing Ben Shapiro to campus goes against Concordia values

http://theconcordian.org/2017/12/07/bringing-ben-shapiro-to-campus-goes-against-concordia-valuesRecently, I heard a student complaining about how the Student Government Association approved a speaker to come on campus to give a speech. After a little inquiry, I learned that the speaker who was meant to come give the talk was Ben Shapiro. The first thing that came to my mind was to look him up and see who is. Although I had heard about him in the past, I didn’t want to make judgements based on what I thought I knew. Some of the first things that popped up on my search feed were his vehement opposition towards transgender individuals and his “destruction” of pro-abortion arguments. Now, I am all for freedom of speech and expression, because I think as humans, those are our basic human rights and we are entitled to express them how we want. However, one thing I will not stand for is using your freedom of speech to attack other people’s personal beliefs and lives. In one of the stories, I found he kept on referring to a transgender individual with the wrong pronouns even if he was corrected several times.

Student gov pulls Shapiro funding after students complain

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10250The Concordia College student government will no longer be funding a talk by a conservative journalist and commentator Ben Shapiro.

The Minnesota school’s Student Government Association (SGA) made the decision to pull the funding on Thursday after holding an emergency vote to determine if Shapiro should be backed by the organization, Inforum reported.

Conservative students say they have been ‘violently threatened’ at Lutheran college

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31735/Four in five students at St. Olaf College, a Lutheran liberal arts school, voted for the Clinton/Kaine ticket in 2016, while Trump/Pence drew 1 in 10 and Johnson/Weld 1 in 20.

But it’s not only that feeling of marginalization that has led conservative students to stay in the closet at the Minnesota school known for its music program, according to student newspaper Manitou Messenger:

Civil rights activist, scholar Angela Davis to speak at St. Olaf

https://wp.stolaf.edu/news/civil-rights-activist-scholar-to-speak-at-st-olaf/Through her activism and scholarship over many decades, Davis has been deeply involved in movements for social justice around the world. Her work as an educator — both at the university level and in the larger public sphere — has always emphasized the importance of building communities to struggle for economic, racial, and gender justice.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.