Colleges Shouldn't Replace Military History With Women's Studies, Crocheting

The Sin of Indifference among Conservatives at Stanford

Michael Barone notes a fascinating disconnect between the history that literate people want to read and the history that academics (by no means all of them literate) want to teach. One example is the replacement of scholars of the colonial and founding period by those into more fashionable pursuits. Another is the replacement of military historians—whose subject matter is of such great interest to literate readers—with academics into women's studies, or crocheting or the like.

U.S. News reported last year on military historians' lack of academic respect and John Miller of National Review writes on how universities are trying to deprivilege military history. To ignore military history is to destroy and obliterate important knowledge or, as Pat Moynihan put it "to burn the library at Alexandria."

Stanford and other elitist halls of politically-left indoctrination ignore at their risk the rumblings of the 'proletariat' against the excessive intrusian into their lives and liberties and highway robbery in government spending. They misjudge the depth of pentup protests which surfaced at the tea parties and may be the shot across the bow by American's who have enjoyed the freedoms and liberty provided in our Constitution and won't give a pass to the 'progressive'and radical politicians who are in control in Washington now.

I would agree with you... BUT

"One example is the replacement of scholars of the colonial and founding period by those into more fashionable pursuits. Another is the replacement of military historians—whose subject matter is of such great interest to literate readers—with academics into women's studies, or crocheting or the like."

I find it offensive that you place women's studies at the polar opposite of military history, as if women have never played any part in military history. And your subtle implication that LITERATE readers would have no interest in women's studies is incredibly disrespectful. And crocheting?! Please.

I, as a woman, would love military history to be more readily available in our universities as it is a subject that has always interested me. But to make the ridiculous assertion that women's studies are to blame for the loss of military history courses is just a desperate attempt to find a scapegoat. Perhaps professors of military history should examine the role of minorities, women, and those of lower ranks in their courses, rather than telling history from the perspective of old white male generals. Maybe more people would enroll in the courses.

Neither am I surprised

"Liberty University, Regent University, Grove City University, etc. -- no indoctrination there."

**

Wow Northern Pike, out of more than 4000 public and private colleges you are able to name 4 that swim against the tide of lefy indoctrination. Guess you've proved some point.

We'll be educated by cowards and...

...defended by fools.

I'm not surprised either

"Colleges and universities have become institutions of indoctrination rather than education."

Liberty University, Regent University, Grove City University, etc. -- no indoctrination there.

And I KNOW there's not one single bit of indoctrination at Brigham Young.

I'm Not Surprised....

Colleges and universities have become institutions of indoctrination rather than education.

You just noticed?

Driving people away from History Majors

This focus not so much on history, but theory, is costing colleges many history majors

I've been reading much Revolutionary War History (ours and the Roman) of late. Love the stuff. Wonder if I had had more of this in college whether I wouldn't have dropped my History Major as I did my senior year. The required courses had way too much theory and way too little history.