Indiana University course teaches students they are inherently oppressive

• A course at Indiana University trains students to view their existence as inherently oppressive based on their race, sex, or religion.
• Professor Colleen Rose makes students identify their identities as “subordinate” or “dominant,” implying that people from certain groups are oppressors by default.
• The course’s premise is criticized as counterproductive, fostering division and resentment among students.
• The issue extends to broader university practices, such as biased admissions and hiring based on diversity quotas rather than merit.
• Universities are warned to focus on merit and critical thinking rather than promoting divisive ideologies that harm social cohesion.

American universities have long pushed very liberal ideologies, and in some cases, students are now being taught that they are born oppressors simply based on their inherent characteristics.

One such example comes from Indiana University (IU), where a course titled “Understanding Diversity in a Pluralistic Society” has caused a firestorm of controversy. Led by Colleen Rose, a 20-year veteran at IU, the course trains students to view their very existence as an oppressive force simply because they belong to a particular race, sex, or religion. This absurd notion not only defies logic but risks fueling division and resentment among students.

Colleen Rose’s approach involves making students identify parts of their identity as either “subordinate” or “dominant.” This inherently divisive exercise assumes that students are oppressors simply for being male, white, or Christian. It’s a radical and deeply flawed ideology that paints students in these categories as inherently oppressive, regardless of their actions or experiences. The implications of such a course are far-reaching, potentially breeding hostility and false narratives of systemic oppression.

The very premise of such a course is not only absurd but also counterproductive. How does it serve society to label anyone, regardless of their intentions or character, as an oppressor based solely on their birth? This kind of thinking does nothing to foster mutual understanding or respect. Instead, it sows seeds of resentment and misunderstanding, which can only harm society in the long run.

Rose’s assumption that all white, Christian men are somehow oppressive, simply by virtue of their identity, is not just misguided—it’s dangerous. It’s tantamount to saying that individuals cannot control their actions or choices, and that they are doomed to be oppressors simply because of who they are. This is a profound insult to anyone who believes in personal responsibility and individual merit.

Colleges like Indiana University should be focusing on teaching students to think critically and empathetically, rather than promoting divisive rhetoric. By fostering a sense of guilt and division, these courses risk creating an environment where constructive dialogue is impossible. If students are taught to see each other primarily through the lens of their supposed social identities, genuine connections and understanding become all but impossible.

The broader problem: Universities promoting diversity over merit

This issue at IU is not an isolated incident. Universities across the nation are increasingly adopting a similar ideological approach to education. From admission policies to hiring practices, the focus on diversity and liberal ideologies has become the new normal.

Many universities boast of their commitment to diversity, but the reality often falls short. Admissions processes are often biased in favor of certain minority groups, creating a quota-based system that prioritizes identity over merit. This not only disadvantages those without such identity markers but also perpetuates the notion that individuals are defined by their differences rather than their individual accomplishments.

The hiring practices at these universities are equally problematic. In an effort to promote ideological diversity, many institutions have begun requiring diversity statements as part of the hiring process. This has led to self-censorship among faculty, who feel pressured to conform to certain ideological norms.

Moreover, universities are increasingly using affirmative-action policies to hire faculty and students, often at the expense of merit. This has created a system where individuals are chosen based on their social identity, rather than their qualifications or potential to contribute to the academic community.

Ultimately, such practices do a disservice to the very ideals of higher education. Universities should be places where students are taught to think critically and build a society based on individual merit, not predetermined identities. Instead, the current trend toward ideological indoctrination risks creating a generation of students who are more concerned with their social identity than with their character, intellect, and the greater good.

Sources for this article include:

NYPost.com

FoxNews.com

FreeBeacon.com

CampusReform.org