The Rotten Core of Scripps’ “Core I”

The required Core I class at Scripps College is marketed both to current and prospective students as a course in “interdisciplinary learning,” promising to teach the bright young women who walk through Scripps’ gates how to think critically. As both citizens in a complex world and women grappling with future career demands, the ability to think critically about the information and many hidden agendas we face is one of the most crucial skills to learn in college. Sadly, in reality, Core I is only a vehicle for promoting an ideological agenda.

Screen Shot 2014-10-28 at 4.42.43 PM
Time to break out the hammer and chisel? Or the hammer and sickle?

According to the description on the Scripps College website, the Core Curriculum’s goal is to “expose students to some of the major concepts and dialogues shaping modern intellectual thought and challenge them to investigate and debate those issues by drawing from multiple perspectives.” This could not be further from the truth. Instead of exposing students to “multiple perspectives” on contentious and important issues, 250 Scripps first years are bombarded on a weekly basis with radically progressive ideological indoctrination by professors who allow very little room for opinions that differ from mainstream liberal thought, lest one be accused of “marginalization” or labeled a “bigot.

Scripps' Core I, Rotten to the Core
Scripps’ Core I, Rotten to the Core

The course, generally made up of one lecture and two hour-long discussions per week, has thus far covered the topics of American slavery, the seizure of America from the Native Americans, a criticism of the American prison system focusing predominantly on how the system oppresses women and racial minorities, and a sexually graphic novel by Jean Genet entitled The Thief’s Journal.

One semester isn’t enough time to study these litanies of oppression in any real depth. As a result, we have been lectured only about the (obvious) injustices inherent in these actions and institutions. Not once have we examined statistics or economic analysis, or the complexities inherent in the historical context of even one of these topics. Instead, our professors have presented us with narrow criticisms of the vast majority of “structures of oppression” that they believe keep the first world running, and the rest of the globe oppressed. These watered down Marxist clichés may be worth hearing, but if the goal of a Scripps education is to produce intellectually sophisticated citizens, it would perhaps be worth hearing competing theories, like those held by at least half of Americans, too. In my Core discussion class, our highly emotional discussions have primarily focused on the claim that students who are white, and presumed to be wealthy, need to learn to “check their privilege.”

I attended a BeHeard forum at Scripps on the subject of “Marginalization on Campus” following the difficult conversations occurring in the Core I discussions. I went to raise the question of how a student with politically conservative views can participate in a Core discussion without immediately being attacked by the student body and professor. When asked how to combat some of the uncomfortable conversations going on in the Core I discussions, one student said that she believed most of the tension was stemming from “students being confronted with their privilege in a way that’s uncomfortable.” She went on to say that she felt totally okay with students feeling uncomfortable and picked on in class as long as they were the “rich, white students” because they have never felt oppressed before.

By her definition, it seems that the goal of Core I is not interdisciplinary learning or critical thinking, but instead some kind of twisted revenge fantasy where students who are assumed to have never encountered any kind of hardship are put in situations where they feel “oppressed, marginalized, uncomfortable, and violated.” In what world, I wonder, is a classroom fueled by such resentment and hostility toward a certain demographic of students conducive to an effective, let alone healthy, learning environment?

Later in this same forum, I asked how a student who has a different opinion about the merits and virtues of a particular “system of oppression,” such as capitalism or the American prison system, could respectfully express a different opinion. How can students with views that don’t share the liberal premises of the curriculum or professor be given a fair chance to express their opinions when it is instantly assumed that they are not just misguided, but actively perpetuate racism, sexism, and classism? My question was met by the inquiry of another student, who asked if I was saying “that I did not support equality” – apparently unaware of the comment’s irony. The student went on to assert that the discomfort I feel in a hostile classroom setting is not actually related to the suppression and distortion of political disagreement with the curriculum, but, rather, to my white guilt of having to confront my presumed privileges.

My argument had not just been dismissed as oppressive, but also irrelevant and unworthy of a thoughtful response, because it was actually just a manifestation of the guilt that I am supposed to feel in encountering such texts. When students can no longer see the difference between disagreements born out of reason and those born out of malice, they must believe that there is only one correct opinion – namely, theirs. And if having an opinion other than the correct one is oppressive, as is taught in Core I, then Core I is not so much about students critically examining their own thoughts and ideas, but instead about making sure everyone conforms to the same progressive ideology. Students are encouraged to verbally attack those who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility, the pillars of thought upon which this country was built. It is clear in the Core I Curriculum that, while race, class, and gender marginalization are condemned, ideological marginalization is not only fair game, but encouraged.

76 thoughts on “The Rotten Core of Scripps’ “Core I””

  1. It seems like you are mostly complaining about people not agreeing with you, which, for the record, is 100% allowed. You are more than welcome to vocalize your ideas and your opinions, but you don’t get to complain when people decide to call you out. I’m sorry that you feel the core program is some sort of “indoctrination system,” but to call yourself marginalized when you have an active and vocal presence at one of the best liberal arts colleges in the country is both narrow-minded and incorrect. This isn’t the era of McCarthy. Speak up. Grow up. And stop complaining that people don’t always agree with you.

    1. I think Sophie’s point isn’t that she minds being disagreed with. What she minds is her opinions being plainly dismissed as oppressive, irrelevant, and unworthy of a thoughtful response. (I actually took that right from the first sentence of the last paragraph.)

    2. You are exactly right. This isn’t the era of McCarthy. This is the era of reverse McCarthy, in which liberals now seek to browbeat conservatives and label them as racists so they don’t have the opportunity to defend or articulate their points.

      There is an enormous difference between “being called out in class” and being unfairly labeled as a racist/bigot, terms that are carelessly thrown around in the current era of reverse-McCarthyism.

      Of course disagreement is 100% allowed. No one is disputing that. But unfairly labeling people as racists/bigots just because you disagree with their point IS oppressive and DOES marginalize conservatives.

      Your comment “stop complaining that people don’t always agree with you” is quite humorous. You obviously disagree with the article, but have no room to rebut her actual arguments, so you resort to trying to mischaracterize her article. Seems like you need to heed your own advice.

      1. The fact that you think “reverse McCarythism” exists when we have an entire CONGRESS and political process where conservative voices are the majority of those represented is hilarious. You are obviously one of those people who complains about reverse racism and supposed white persecution.

        1. I don’t think they are saying that “reverse McCarthyism” exists on a national level, where there is a congress which now has a conservative majority. They are saying that it exists at a school like scripps, which is over 90% liberal. In addition, the fact that you believe the political system is too good now to allow “reverse McCarthyism” to ever take a hold is interesting. The same political system allowed mccarthyism to take place, so why not the opposite? I also like your insult at the end. Way to keep discussion civil and reasonable.

        2. If you equate the Republican Party leadership of today with the Conservative of today, then you are a victim of the indoctrination Leftists have been practicing in higher education since the Sixties. Times have changed. The Republican Party leadership has been infiltrated by Leftists. Today’s Republican Party leadership is Democrat-lite and show nothing but contempt for Conservatives. Remember Mitch McConnell vowing to “crush the tea party”? If Conservatives were in the majority, at least 2,000,000 federal bureaucrats would have already been cashiered and would now be collecting their unemployment benefits. The Republican Party leadership loves Big Government as much as do the Marxist Democrats. You should become aware of the important difference between a Republican and a Conservative.

      2. Do you even know what happened under McCarthyism? Having a certain opinion was literally a CRIMINAL OFFENSE. “Reverse McCarthyism?” You’re not in jail, you haven’t been kicked out of school, you haven’t been denied ANYTHING–so much for being “marginalized.”

        1. K – Foul – with the fall of the USSR and the release of KGB documents, McCarthy was proved right. He may have been marginalized, but he was right just as Sophie Mann is.

    3. xx, you miss the point entirely. The author’s classmates and teachers don’t disagree with her, that would involve argument and reasoning. What they do is delegitimize and dehumanize her, reducing her to a name, “bigot”. They don’t engage with her and offer her the respect of a rebuttal, they declare she is unworthy of anything that could be described as intellectual engagement.

      1. …You really think “dehumanization” is what’s going on here?? How do you know nobody is engaging with this person in her classes? She described an instance at a forum where her vocalization of this particular issue was considered illegitimate–not her actual classroom discussions themselves.

        1. K- If her particular issues where illegitimate then also was the discussions that raised those concerns.
          Making the whole forum was a waste of time and money, both spent and paid.

    4. “One of the best liberal arts colleges in the country”. Ha ha ha ha. Here, in the outside world, Scripps is considered a major joke. A bastion of intolerant, narrow-minded liberal thinking. The author is 100% dead-on. Liberals don’t like to be confronted with alternative views, let alone the reality of those views.

    5. White privilege arguments are being employed to handicap light complexioned students. Such stereotypes stifle dissent. The history of people and events is more rich and complex than a simple point of view can describe. The more adamant the teacher with their point of view, the less accurate is their relative version of truth.

      1. Look, you clearly haven’t taken Core I, so don’t jump to conclusions about the number of “points of view” that are presented in that class. You don’t know the reading list. You don’t know who gave the diverse set of lectures that everyone attends, or the different approaches they have to teaching the humanities.

    6. If there were three classes and a novel that justified slavery and segregation, I’m sure you would not agree with the class content or the objectives of such a curriculum. Would you still allow such a curriculum to be taught to vulnerable and receptive young people? Would you complain and grow up?

    7. She was not complaining at all. She was pointing out a problem with the Core program that any truly open-minded and mature person would be very happy to hear.

    8. No – she is commenting about how rational discourse has been turned into an attack fest. Why don’t you leftists face up to it. Your opinions on what other people need to experience are based in a twisted god complex taken on by huge numbers of academicians. This is mental illness writ large, and it is the prerogative of the writer to expose this twisted mindset that even hates the idea of polite company. This is the first time in history this has been tried, and all because you guys are trying to create a universe unlike any that exists, in other words you hate the world. You have nothing in history to compare to this wickedness to show that it leads to your idea of utopia. And like all utopian schemes attempted over history, yours will backfire.

  2. I’m confused– do you want Scripps to institute a policy where students who disagree with you are not allowed to say they think you are wrong? Are professors supposed to refrain from presenting their own analyses of the subject matter agreed upon by the institution? The goal of the Core Curriculum is to “expose students to some of the major concepts and dialogues shaping modern intellectual thought and challenging them to investigate and debate those issues.” The fact that you are being called out in class by professors and students does not contradict that goal. Nobody promised you would be coddled by your liberal arts education.

    1. There is a difference between being “called out in class”/having fellow students say you’re wrong, and being systematically persecuted as a racist and bigot for holding a conservative viewpoint. There is also a difference between a professor presenting their own analyses and indoctrinating their students by only offering one perspective on an issue.

      Sounds like the only person being coddled by a LIBERAL arts education is yourself.

      1. Systematically persecuted? Explain to me how, with a majority in Congress, a campus publication dedicated to your interests, clubs and communities you are welcomed in, and the legal protection of freedom of speech, you can compare the treatment of conservatives in these schools to “systematic persecution.” You are not being murdered or jailed for your opinions, nor denied opportunities. I suggest you read a survey article on “systematic persecution” and try to convince me Claremont Republicans face discrimination in this community. Same with “indoctrination,” for that matter.

    2. The assumption that non progressive white students have less worthy perceptions fouls the debate. The echo chamber of anger and greivance in those discussions soon overwhelms any opposing or more nuanced thought.

  3. You should go talk to your professors about these topics in more depth if you feel silenced in the classroom, but still want to learn. I think you’re a troll, though, so you probably won’t.

    1. Did you even think before you wrote that comment? The author explains how the professors themselves are the problem. Going to talk to them probably wouldn’t do much good. I think you’re a troll, though, so you probably don’t understand this reality.

      1. Don’t insult my intelligence. It seems to me all anyone wants on these campuses is an echo-chamber. That’s not reality, either. In reality, when you’ve tested, interviewed, applied, paid thousands, etc. to come to an institution of higher education, and you find your viewpoints categorically challenged, you’re better to have these discussions while you have the chance! This girl makes Core 1 out to be 100% conjecture – wake up, sweetie! Your professors are not your peers, they are your TEACHERS. What’s conjecture is complaining online that the curriculum is rotten, as a matter of fact. I’m not fooled – Sophie’s not afraid of her professors. She disagrees with them and refuses to be convinced, which is her prerogative, but let’s call it what it is.

        1. R’s point: Ask your professors your critical questions. If they’re good and professional people, they’ll illuminate some aspect of the answer you might find helpful, whether or not they agree with your conclusions. To me, you are the perfect student for Core 1, because, contrary to what you may think, you probably agree with the masses (there are multiple masses) – i.e. you aren’t thinking anything new. Strive to think something new, even if it’s only new to you. You give yourself away as soon as you call anything “obvious.” Hegemonic culture is predominant, by definition. You have to UN-learn it. If you can engage with the most progressive, radical, liberal (whatever tf stubborn people want to call it) ideas with a critically open-mind, obviously you’re gonna grow for it. Your entire college experience is a learning experience, from the dining halls to the textbooks. It’s to your benefit, as a student, to be empathetic and attentive to yourself and the world around you 24/7, around the clock. At the end of the day, for you to be rejecting experiences and theory which you.admit.you’ve.not.been.fully.educated.on. doesn’t make any sense. In fact, for a person who claims to aim for critical thought, you’re stepping on your own toes! The only useful thing you’ve got at the moment is the indignant attitude, which will be good when you’re fighting for a cause and not just the *cited sources* of the pieces you’re reading. A better source than the citations is yourself. Check your privilege (and everything else). I mean, it’s okay to be triggered by “oppression,” Sophie, but what you’re experiencing with Core is not it. That’s life.

  4. Thanks for this perspective. Although I would not consider myself particularly conservative, Scripps does purport to support debate – and debate means at least being exposed to both sides.

  5. Scripps does not support debate on the issues brought up in class- my professor never even pretended that it was okay to do so. Additionally, you’re right about the fact that we are only presented with pieces pushing one agenda and representing one narrative. Zero pieces with different arguments, zero motivation to sharpen argumentative skills, zero zero zero.

    Very important topics, not the right approach.

    1. Take your trolling someplace else. “This article gave me gonorrhea” does not advance the discussion in any way nor contribute a meaningful perspective. People like yourself only validate the author’s point.

  6. Good article, Sophie. You’re right — it is hypocritical that those activist, militant liberals who purport to support equality and tolerance are themselves intolerant. They think that there is just one way to think. In general, college students from both political parties would be wise to “check their perspective,” a small adjustment to a phrase some students so vehemently use. We are all young, and to think that we are enlightened in our view of the world is delusional. The amount of information that we don’t know, but claim to know, is enormous.

    As a side note, I find it interesting that so many other commenters use the phrase “called out.” It has a vehement connotation that confirms the fact that they view your opinion as bullshit. Plain and simple.

    Last thought. What I find interesting between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives can tolerate a difference of opinion. They don’t demand that everyone agree with them. Not so with some liberals.

    I look forward to the scathing response comments to the above, or now that I’ve hinted, perhaps they’ll just ignore? We’ll see.

  7. I’m confused—are you looking for justifications for slavery, genocide, and patriarchy? Because if you are, it shouldn’t be a surprise that you’re on the wrong side of history.

    1. “How can students with views that don’t share the liberal premises of the curriculum or professor be given a fair chance to express their opinions when it is instantly assumed that they are not just misguided, but actively perpetuate racism, sexism, and classism? My question was met by the inquiry of another student, who asked if I was saying ‘that I did not support equality’ – apparently unaware of the comment’s irony.”

    2. You are on the wrong side of reality. The author is simply asking that Scripps provide a more balanced, objective education for its students. Is that really too much to ask for? I guess in an environment in which students like yourself automatically jump to such ridiculous conclusions it is.

      You bring up slavery, genocide and patriarchy. Do you think in Scripps Core I classes professors present the fact that the United States is one of the only countries to engage in a civil war over slavery? Do you think they present the fact that America has paid millions in reparations and established numerous reservations for Native Americans? Do you think they present the fact that many other countries (i.e. Middle Eastern ones) currently have atrocious records on women’s rights?

      The answer to all of these questions is a resounding hell no. Asking that professors shed light on some of these aforementioned realities is not trying to find a justification for these unfortunate, unforgivable aspects of our history. It is merely providing additional context so Scripps students don’t walk away with the ridiculous notion that America is a despicable country with a horrendous history of oppression.

      1. I seriously hope you go to Scripps and have taken Core I, because of not then you are making some serious assumptions.

        But even so, allowing for the U.S.’s record to wiped clean by the blood and hatred of others is astoundingly childish. Is it not a matter of importance that the so-called ‘greatest country on Earth’ be critical of its own wrongdoings, especially since (whether you like or not) we have a lot to choose from?

        Here are some other things that don’t get addressed in the high school version of American history:

        – European settlers killed 90 percent of all Natives on the continent. That’s genocide no matter how you cut.

        – Natives were continuously backed stabbed by the federal government.

        – Iroquois republican democracy began centuries before Western civilization.

        – American capitalism was born and bread off the backs of Black slaves (thank Adam Smith for all that free cotton, amiright?)

        – Slavery was first and foremost an economic institution, not a racialized one.

        – Women were allowed to vote a mere 100 years ago (that’s one really old lady or two 40 year old aunts living back to back).

        I could go on, but the point’s been made: we, as a country, have a lot to pull out of the rug.

        1. IDon’t even know where to start here. Sounds like you have a lot of anti-American sentiment to get off your chest, which is not surprising since you feel the need to employ the “so called ‘greatest country on Earth'” jab.

          Of course the United States should be critical of its past. But should we only be critical of our past and not talk about the progress that has been made? Absolutely not. But, as the author points out, this is exactly what is happening in Scripps Core I classes.

          And I can’t help but rebut a few of your baseless claims:

          – Disease, mainly smallpox contracted from Europeans, is a big factor in the 90% statistic. So no, Europeans didn’t murder 90% of Native Americans.

          – “American capitalism was born and bread off the backs of Black slaves?” – are you serious? Sure hope you didn’t make such a statement in your Econ 50 class, as you would be laughed out of the room.

          1. Please explain how slavery was not a precondition and a founding pillar of Western industrial capitalism.

      2. LOL yeah because the establishment of reservations for Native Americans was so kind and thoughtful of the US Government. Of course you would attack the Middle East for their human’s rights abuses and fail to recognize that it is crucial for American students to learn about US systems of prejudice and oppression. You haven’t studied history and you’re spouting the same normative dialogue that Fox News presents every day. Stop pretending that you are a history expert. You probably haven’t even read Zinn.

      3. What do you think we’ve been learning for the past 12 years in our primary education if not that America has done Great Things like allow political representation for women and somehow manage not to kill every Native American?

    3. Why justify it anywhere Carlos ? So why not acknowledge that many Americans were against slavery from early on and even fought against it? Where else has that happened? Many others were not interested either way because the U. S. population was largely rural with people struggling to make a living with subsistence farming. There are racists and bigots everywhere Carlos – alot in Latin America – and not just among “white people”. How is it to be black away from the Carribean Coast in many parts of Latin America? How about pre-columbian ethnic cleansing, genocide, torture and killing of captives – acknowledge it and put things in perspective. It is a human, not specifically an American problem.

  8. Most primary and secondary educational institutions in the United States teach a mythologized version of American history. Most of the stories about American history we are taught as young children are liitle more than fairy tales and just so stories painting America as an exceptional force for good, morality and justice in the world since its inception. Most societies do this and it’s an understandable need to raise citizens who feel good and proud of their country. But it really makes for an uneducated misinformed simplistic thinking populace. It’s really the social science equivalent of creationism. Good colleges try to challenge that and undo that. That’s why they exist and that’s why so many bright people send their kids to one. Many professors and academics rightly understand and see their mission as needling to counter this false and distorted consciousness on the part of most of their incoming students about the nature of America, and to present a set of facts that dismantle the mythology and show a more complex history. I agree with this mission and I think it’s vitally important. And yes there is overzealousness and there is a a silly pressure to drink the new Kool-Aid that can alienate some students and that’s wrong and counterproductive. And yes, it’s uncomfortable for many students to be presented with facts the challenge their basic worldview, the worldview taught to them by trusted teachers and parents their whole lives, which turns out to be in fact a mythology much of which is false. Colleges and universities are probably the only places in our society where an alternative “critical” view is presented. The radical zeal may be a function of the fact that the professors know they have a very limited time window to reach their students.

      1. From the American founding all the way up until Reconstruction, the North (through its ports, factories, etc.) was always more representative of “Western industrial capitalism”…the southern institution of slavery is in no way representative of the capitalist model…it was a very inefficient economic model. This is why the North was able to beat the South during the Civil War…they had produced more food, supplies, built more infrastructure and had the money to outlast the South.

  9. I know nothing about Core I, so I can’t comment on how accurate this article is in reference to that exact class. But I have observed similar trends, and I agree that they have troubling consequences for academic discourse and learning.

    I’m about as liberal as they come, and it saddens me to repeatedly see fellow liberals interpret conservative viewpoints as being indicative of low moral character. They almost never are. As observed in a comment above, just because someone points out that most of the 90% wipeout of native americans was from smallpox, not direct murder, doesn’t mean they have a goal of devaluing Native American loss. They just prefer the full story rather than a biased one.

    When conservatives diss liberals, they call them stupid and shortsighted. When liberals diss conservatives, they call them evil/racist/proponents of injustice.

    Ever felt scared to raise your hand because you thought you might sound dumb? Imagine worrying that everyone will think you are moral scum. It’s worse.

    My points are a little outside the scope of what is in this article. But the concerns with the culture in Core I expressed here closely mirror a trend that I have seen many times, and it isn’t helping anyone.

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a basic tenet of current conservative thought the idea that the wealthy and privileged deserve to be so because they are inherently superior and earned their status? And that the poor deserve to be so because they are inferior, lazy, “takers?” I would argue that this argument is morally bankrupt, demonstrably wrong, and a self -justifying self deception. And students who espouse this kind of thinking should be challenged. Just like students who enter a freshman biology class arguing that the world is 5000 years old and that fossil evidence to the contrary was planted by Satan to fool us. No competent teacher would allow this kind of demonstrably false mythology to go unchallenged.

      1. That’s one hell of a straw man you’ve got yourself there. But yeah, you’re wrong. You assume there is one form of conservatism, and then you ascribe to this mythical universal conservatism the most hilariously slanted and cartoonish understanding of conservative thought that exists mainly in the fever dreams of the hard left. Feel free to engage with conservative philosophers and think on those writings before coming back.

      2. First, an observation: “isn’t it a basic tenant of current [academic elitism] the idea that the enlightened and educated deserve to be so because they are inherently superior” intellectually “and earned their status [through years of studying at a college likely paid for by their parents]?” “And that the [uneducated] deserve to be so because they are inferior, lazy,” dropouts? “I would argue that this argument is morally bankrupt, demonstrably wrong, and a self-justifying self deception. And [academics] who espouse this kind of thinking should be challenged.”
        You make an interesting point you likely did not intend. Why do you (as well as most of academia) characterize conservatives like this? Do you really think all conservatives are fans of (or can even tolerate) Fox News or the plurality of Republican party leaders? If you’ll venture beyond the ivory towers and see past liberal dogma, I believe you will find a sizable group of ethically conscious, moral people in society who believe the preposterous thought that we have already found a few ways of doing things well and that many, but not all, of our problems can be solved by people acting on their own. Imagine for a moment if Colombia promoted the mythology you describe above, prohibited students from ever considering a different view, and adamantly refused any grounds for debate. If all other colleges followed suit, would generations of otherwise excellent teachers speaking of 5,000 year old fossils not result? I believe we can all benefit from putting preconceptions aside and considering other views. The answers to our problems probably lie somewhere in between.

  10. Point taken. Genuinely interested to hear a more reasoned, nuanced, non-slanted and un- cartoonish conservative perspective on the issue and causes of increasing income inequality in the US. No sarcasm intended or implied -genuinely interested.

  11. “SHIT I HAD NO IDEA ANY OF MY FELLOW PEERS WERE BEING UNCOMFORTABLY CONFRONTED ABOUT THEIR PRIVILEGE! This is an injustice that MUST be righted. I… I really had no idea.”

    LOL you are a joke.

  12. The author does me a great service, if unintentionally. A legacy requires me to make a significant charitable donation, which I will now not give to Scripps. I had not realised their agenda of indoctrination, which as a lifelong liberal I must oppose. Thank you for this well-wrought essay, as I write the check to my second choice.

      1. yeah, it did. maybe we should get into how some here want to “dismiss as irrelevant” events that make their spokesperson less than credible.

        1. The point of the article is actually not how polite or rude the author was to her particular section leader. But please continue to overlook the actual content of the piece.

  13. Notice: The Scripps College administration has noticed a website posting truncation. The compulsory class title is not Core 1, it’s Core 1984. The posting also missed a diminutive asterisk, to indicate any vocal or written disagreement from students is automatic grounds for failing the class. Scripps College resembles the error.

  14. Lord Byron wrote: “Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”

    By Byron’s definition, those Scripps faculty and staff who do not use their reason to intellectually engage with the author are: bigots, fools, or intellectual slaves. I suspect that many are merely slaves to a unreasoning neo-Marxist campus fad, lacking the moral courage to dare to disagree with the mob on campus (as the author does). I don’t doubt that some, especially in the faculty, are bigots refusing to use their reason. But I fear that many are fools, simply intellectually unequipped to make arguments, to analyze and defend them.

    So sad.

  15. Sounds like a great course. Graduates will be reasonably well equipped ideologically for a lifetime spent in various “Occupy” movements …

  16. Interesting discussion – shows the trends in American student thinking as of 2014. The use of so many”labels”, and “big words” does tend to confuse. The full understanding of the complex Human character grows as each year of ones Life passes by. In a free and open society, every one wins, depending upon their abilities. Rich, smitch! The rich, who work hard within existing laws, provide the jobs, which keep most everyone working! Without “rich”, no work, fellas’! Good luck, all. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  17. These ‘oppression olympians’ will get excellent jobs manning the re-education camps the left likes to build. I’m sure the Norks, Chinese and Vietnamese can help with technique.

  18. *Disclaimer: My comment includes many of my opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These beliefs are irrelevant towards my argument but I needed to express them to validate my argument.*
    I whole heartedly disagree with this article. I do believe that while the Core program does promote a more radical ideology, this does not detract from it being an excellent course that prepares Scripps students for the rigors of collegiate academics. It is unfortunate that this article tarnishes the Core experience, one which I found to be extremely eye-opening and productive. As an ardent supporter of Israel, of course my views differed from those of the professors and the majority of the students in my class. However, rather than sulking about how everyone disagreed with me, I sought to make my voice heard and legitimized. The first Core lecture of last year, given by Professor Roselli, extremely offended me. In the lecture, Roselli referred to Israel as a colonial power and likened colonialism to genocide to highlight the then upcoming lecture by Ward Churchill entitled “Colonialism=Genocide”. This statement infuriated me, and I resented the fact that because it was a lecture, I could not voice my truth to the audience but had to suffer through the awful lies.
    In class the next day, my wonderful professor asked us how we felt about the lecture. She mentioned that she agreed with the professor’s comments on Israel and planned on giving a lecture in October about Israeli colonialism. I know that Israel is a heated subject for many and does not make for the most pleasant debate, I needed to defend the Jewish state against this offensive leftist rhetoric. In front of the entire class, I advocated for Israel. I expressed my discontent at Professor Roselli for being able to indoctrinate the vulnerable first-years without providing much context, and thus, in my opinion, was taking advantage of them. My professor was impressed by my courage and wanted to hear more about my opinions on the subject before she gave her lecture. She invited me to get coffee with her and asked me why I disagreed with the statement that Israel is a colonial power. The entire discussion was very respectful, and afterwards she told me that she would no longer give a lecture on the subject because I was right, the topic is too complex for an hour long lecture to fairly and accurately give the history of both sides.
    This article fails to show the value in Core that can only exist when the student puts in effort to engage in respectful dialogue with students and professors. Also, I believe that the author’s distaste of being told to check her privilege is a sign of immaturity, for that statement used to bother me too but now I understand and appreciate its validity. Overall, I found the Core experience to be positive and accepting, and this article in no sense reflects the reality of Core at Scripps, even for students like me who do not agree with the majority opinion.

  19. As a student in Core 1, I have to wonder what readings Sophie refers to? And why reduce Genet Thief’s Journal to a “sexually graphic novel.” Again, did she bother to read it?? She says there was no statistics and no complexity? Maybe she skipped the lectures too. I guess it is easier to make up complaints about a course if you do not do the work. Even sadder that some of the people commenting feel free to add their own lame speculations on the grounds that what Sophie says reflects what actually happens in Core 1. With some things, it helps if you know what you are talking about. This would be one of those things. And Sophie does not. Personally I am thankful we have professors who try to do more than coddle students like this.

    1. Hmmmm…
      It seems like you’re just kind of angry with me.
      Your comment does little more than hostily question whether or not I’ve done the work for the course. Questioning my academic commitment really doesn’t do too much to further the actual point of the article, which you also fail to address. The last sentence of your comment bears no correlation to the rest of it, and therefore doesn’t make sense. And furthermore you have not attached your name to your comment, as I did to my article. If you want to talk to me about my article you should try talking to messaging me, but somehow I doubt you actually want to further the conversation. Being rude anonymously has never gotten anyone very far, but I suppose it’s easier to make up complaints about someone if you don’t bother talking to them.

  20. WHY ARE ALL THESE MEN, WHO HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER TAKEN A SCRIPPS COURSE, COMMENTING ON THIS ARTICLE?! You are not part of the student body, you are not qualified to make comments on the Core program. So typical that men would take a conversation completely unrelated to them, and make it about themselves and the so-called “liberal agenda” gtfo.

  21. I took Core and I feel the same way as you do. This is a very accurate article and anyone who criticizes you for it did not read it completely or with an open mind. Thank you for your bravery and eloquence.

Leave a Reply

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