I am taking a class on ethics. The professors at this college are so left wing, it makes me ill. They are constantly quoting Karl Marx, and are teaching from a left wing position. The assignment last week was to review this question:

“You are a reporter who is in a war zone during a war between two fictional countries, North Monrovia, and South Monrovia. The United States is providing support to South Monrovia. The North Monrovian forces offer to take you to a location where there is evidence of atrocities performed by the southern forces. While en route to the scene of the massacre, the Northern force finds itself in a position to ambush an American unit. This brings us to the dilemma: Do you warn the AMerican force, or do you keep quiet and get the story?”

I stated that the reporter is an American first, and that in order to be a member of this society, he needs to participate in that society. How can he expect the members of this society to defend him, if he is not willing to defend others? This is what the professor had to say:

On the other hand, a reporter has an important job, a job that keeps our democracy working (such as it does) by keeping the citizenry informed. Would reporters be able to be embedded to do that job if it is known that they will warn American troops? I am reminded of a report on a Gulf War video we were not allowed to see (the first President Bush knew how to keep the press under control during war): It showed Iraqi soldiers in the desert being literally cut in half by machine gun fire. A U.S. general commented that if the American public were allowed to see this footage, they would never go to war again. There is another difference that a fellow student points out: “If you knew a murder was going to take place, would you let the person know, or the Authorities know?” I believe this analogy works, yet not entirely. The victim generally does not have the potential of killing the prospective killer. American soldiers would. The American soldiers are not “innocent victims”; they are armed combatants in enemy territory, are trained to deal with surprise enemy attacks—and are there to kill the enemy in a war situation. Maybe an American reporter has to decide not to be embedded with enemy troops in the first place. Of course, that would sacrifice the role of the press.

First, in every assignment so far in this class, this professor has found a way to slam someone from the Bush family. Second,  what does this say about the education that your children are receiving while away at college?

Categories: Uncategorized


TOTWTYTR · July 28, 2010 at 8:38 pm

What it says to me is that college dollars are wasted on liberal arts degrees. There is a whole school of thought that the liberal arts education bubble is going to burst because after $100K or more in tuition for a four year degree the graduate is fully qualified to work at Borders, Starbucks, or maybe the Book Nook. At minimum wage. Try paying off those college loans on that kind of salary.

At some point, parents are going to just say no to that kind of expense and all those liberal liberal arts professors will find themselves working for minimum wage at Starbucks, Borders, or the Book Nook. Of course, they'll still have the pleasure of blaming George Bush for all the world's woes.

Divemedic · July 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm

That is why so many liberal classes are required to get a degree in something real. No one would otherwise take those courses.

For example, to go to med school you need a Bachelor's Degree. To get a Bachelor's, you need to take all sorts of arts and humanities classes, literature classes, etc.

Why do you think I had to take the ethics class in the first place?

Comments are closed.