Why You Should Reconsider Donating to Your Alma Mater

How unaccountable SJW bureaucrats are stealing your donation and using it to subvert America.

Let’s face it, most of us are proud of our universities.

We made friends and memories there. We learned life lessons, overcame challenges, and got started on the path to our careers. And we were definitely better than those losers at X State down the highway or across town.

Sadly, many of the universities we remember no longer exist.

Sure, there are institutions that still bear their names and relentless alumni associations that still manage to hit you up for donations despite a dozen moves and a decade of overseas oilfield work.

Many of my older friends still loyally donate to their Alma Maters every year. They do so to repay the schools for the success they’ve earned in life and to help a new generation of professionals afford college.

These are noble intentions and I am thankful for the generosity of older alumni who helped me afford college.

Tragically, this stream of generosity is being hijacked by SJWs in university administrations and shockingly little alumni money goes to the purported causes.

SJW bureaucrats got their fingers in the cookie jar and are using the money to build their politically correct empires and safe spaces.

The goal of these parasites is to build an empire in their image.

They do this by finding a problem, such as incorrect gender pronouns or insufficient superficial diversity. Then the parasites prescribe a cumbersome “solution” to this problem. Speech codes, safe spaces, LGBQWTF counselors, microaggression hotlines, and other so called so called “solutions” are a parasite’s wet dream.

The solutions implemented by the SJW parasites serve two functions:

  1. They make work that allows the parasite to hire underlings. This allows the parasite to immediately reproduce itself and fill the administration with more SJWs.
  2. This allows the parasite to control student conduct and force a politically correct environment where conservatives and moderates can be punished for wrong-think.

Any donations to a general fund or endowment will support the parasites.

Administrators do not want to reduce costs to students (though they will claim otherwise). Any money that slips past them and goes to scholarships can’t be used for empire building. The school’s budget and therefore their empire size is bigger if they spend the donation and make the students take out loans.

Any money that slips past them and goes to scholarships can’t be used for “empire building.” The school’s budget and therefore their empire size is bigger if they spend the donation and make the students take out loans.

I’ve seen administrators try to “steal” a multimillion dollar donation that was earmarked for a particular cause and try to spend it on pet projects. The donation was pulled because the donor was paying attention (and is a tough multinational businessman).

Throughout the whole scandal, the administrators maintained that they could spend the money however they wanted in spite of any stipulations by the donor.

Friends from other colleges have disavowed their Alma Maters over scholarship money going to unnecessary building.

The parasites will expand to consume all available money. And they will do everything they can to force SJW approved discrimination on everyone at a school.

The bigger the parasite empire, the worse the discrimination and repression.

Donations that aren’t carefully controlled WILL go to aggrandizing the parasitic empire and oppressing conservatives.

Before you donate, make sure you the school you remember still exists. If it still exists, then make sure you can verify the destination of your donation.

If the SJWs will try to steal an earmarked multimillion dollar donation from a tough businessman, they won’t think twice about diverting a $500 donation from someone they don’t know to fear.

The Deplorable Doctoral Candidate is an engineer, climate skeptic, entrepreneur, critic of academia, and occasional blogger. You can follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DepPhDcandidate

In Support of Free Speech – Colorado Senate Bill 17-062

The free exchange of ideas and debate are the foundation of academia. When ideas are heard and challenged, students have the opportunity to learn and grow. Generations of young scholars sharpened their wits debating their classmates. Today, this tradition and its educational benefits are under attack across America. In the name of shielding hypersensitive millennials from the pain of debate, disagreement, and hurt feelings, university administrators are cracking down on free speech. It is time to push back against this encroachment.

Speech codes at modern universities go far beyond constitutional limits on speech, such as libel and slander. Hurt feelings are all it takes for legally protected speech to violate university policy. Academic administrators use catch all definitions that can be contorted to include almost anything. Labeling a hyper sensitive, perpetually offended student a special snowflake could be interpreted as creating a hostile atmosphere. That’s enough to get student suspended on some campuses. Don’t even think about phrases like “suck it up, buttercup!”

It doesn’t matter where the speech occurs. Universities try to police all student speech. Did you post a controversial opinion on Facebook? Or retweet Mike Cernovich and Ann Coulter? Or vocally support the President’s wall at a party. If the wrong person is physically present or sees it online, you could be in violation. All that matters to the university disciplinary committee is that snowflake ran to them crying.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (the FIRE) litigates cases more ridiculous than anything implied here every year. As of this writing, only one college in Colorado – Western State – has a good rating from the FIRE. Every other has at least one significant threat to free speech. This is unacceptable and betrays the spirit of college.

As a student at a college with a problematic speech code, I am excited by Tim Neville’s efforts to protect free speech. I am remaining anonymous because my college speech policy has extremely loose definitions. The wording is so broad and vague that my stereotypes of students could be twisted into an offense. The environment created by this ambiguity and looming threat is unhealthy and profoundly contradicts the values of academia. In a rational world, expressing this opinion should not be cause for concern. Senate Bill 17-062 will be a major step towards restoring reason and common sense to Academia.

The Deplorable Doctoral Candidate is an engineer, climate skeptic, entrepreneur, critic of academia, and occasional blogger. You can follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DepPhDcandidate

Should Free Speech be Zoned?

Steve_Humphrey Tim_Neville

Colorado State Legislators Senator Tim Neville and Representative Steve Humphrey have been making headlines with there “Student Free Speech Public Higher Education Campuses” bill.

This legislation would prohibit colleges and universities from restricting a student’s free speech on campus.

Neville & Humphrey’s bill is in direct response to “Free Speech Zones” that colleges and universities use to keep protestors fenced in to a specific location.

The irony of having “Free Speech Zones” setup far away from actual events and restrained by fences must be lost to University officials.

How can one have “free speech” if one is restricted in their ability to speak freely?

Not to mention, how can tax-payer funded institutions justify restricting Constitutional rights of their students?

Senator Neville and Rep. Humphrey deserve whatever praise they get from sponsoring this bill.

Senator Neville’s editorial regarding his bill has been popping up all over the Colorado news sphere. The Gazette, The Denver Post and various local news agenices have reprinted the editorial.

One line struck us as poignant, especially with all the talk of “safe-spaces” and “social justice warriors”: “We have to continue to teach our children that in order to be free, they must also be brave.”

Well said Senator.

How Draft Deferrers Ruined Academia and Why They Promote Useless Degrees


The rot of grade inflation and useless degrees began in the Vietnam era. The Selective Service allowed men to defer the draft if they were enrolled in college and making progress towards any degree. The theory was that educated soldiers are better soldiers and that some could be recruited as officers after their degree.

There was no limit to deferrals. If someone kept making satisfactory progress
towards a degree, undergraduate or graduate, they could defer the draft.

In theory, an engineering or mathematics PhD who was in college too long to be drafted was still valuable to supporting the war effort. The strategic purpose of the deferral was subverted by the anti-war left who used it to avoid the draft and forever eroded Academia’s standards.

Liberal anti-war faculty members wanted to keep students in college and out of the draft. In the days before grade inflation, this was easier said than done. Colleges had high standards and only about 15% of awarded grades were As. It was virtually guaranteed that some students would flunk out and be drafted.

This was an unacceptable outcome to many faculty members and they reacted by lowering their standards. Between 1963 and 1973 the percentage of As awarded approximately doubled while the number of Cs and Ds declined sharply. The faculty did not care about the personnel needs of the army, the integrity of academia, or the utility of the education.

The compromising of standards forever altered the culture of academia. It lowered expectations and devalued the utility of the degree. The expectation became that most students would pass most classes if they showed up. Anyone who at least tried deserved a B! Good grades became the expected participation trophy.

Draft deferrers didn’t care what they got a degree in so long as it was easy and kept them out of the war. They flocked to easier degrees in the humanities. Universities filled classrooms for ideological reasons and became hooked on the tuition money from hollowed out degrees. Even after the war, the focus on academic expectations and degree utility never returned. Instead, colleges began upselling participation trophy degrees as a golden ticket to the middle class.

Perhaps the greatest achievement left wing anti-war faculty was the permanent politicizing of academia. The precedent was set when academic standards were lowered for political reasons. It signaled the accepted political views and attracted like minded students who would go on to become the next generation of their fields.

When everyone agreed, ideas were not challenged and intellectual development was stunted. Why go to great lengths debating when everyone knows the right answer? The result was a generation of poorly trained humanities graduates without the interest or ability to engage with other ideas. The world’s problems were the West’s fault.

As the colleges replaced retiring faculty and expanded, they began hiring the draft deferrers and their peers into the humanities. The deferrers wasted no time in making the right opinions known and stifling meaningful debate. They did nothing for the utility of the degree or to increase the academic standards since that would cut off their own income. The deferrers had become the academic establishment and lived on the tuition money of new students.

The events set in motion by academia’s abuse of college deferment caused catastrophic rot. By lowering standards to keep men out of the draft, academia started a downhill slide in rigor and made academic policy explicitly political.

The deferrers lack of interest in the degree as anything more than a status and participation trophy lead to a hollowing out of the humanities. This was compounded when deferrers themselves became professors and further politicized the humanities.

Academia’s decision to put politics ahead of integrity has caused immense damage and is a major contributor to today’s college bubble.

The Deplorable Doctoral Candidate is an engineer, climate skeptic, entrepreneur, critic of academia, and occasional blogger. You can follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DepPhDcandidate