Saturday, February 01, 2014

Rutgers giving credits for politicizing Beyoncé

I was defending my PhD on 9/11/2001, 9:30 am, about 43 kilometers from the World Trade Center, more precisely at the Busch Campus which belongs to the New Brunswick campuses of Rutgers. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, also has campuses at two very different places, Newark and Camden.

Beyoncé: Halo

You could argue that the resulting PhD diploma is just a dirty piece of toilet paper and the following story that I was sent by Honza U. supports the validity of such a claim:
Beyoncé college course offered at Rutgers University
The Department of Whining Feminists, Sluts, and Bitches of Rutgers University in New Brunswick (I hope that I remembered its name accurately; if I have forgotten an article, I humbly apologize) is actually offering you college credits for "politicizing Beyoncé" which is – I kid you now – the title of the course.

The students are supposed to look "at the American race, gender, and sexuality through the star's music".

Now, this is so shocking at so many levels. First of all, it is utterly wrong to politicize music, to politicize science, to politicize sports, to politicize every realm of human activity that is supposed to be about some internal (and meritocratic) values that are independent of people's political opinions and interests. Politicization hurts these human activities because it leads the people to replace meritocratic objective judgments by judgments determined by their personal interests and according to their most general ideological preconceptions.

So the intent described in the very title of the course is despicable in the same sense – albeit to a lesser extent – as or than the course "How to reduce colored peoples in gas chambers". It's just wrong. So let's now assume that we have the same morality and respect to music as the sluts – none – and let's ask whether there may be any meaningful content in the course.

Kevin Allred: it's obviously the instructor, isn't he? He will only order the students to read rants by black feminists and nothing else.

A Kevin Allfred who was actually not afraid of revealing his name (in a decent country, he would be found, dragged to a freezing forest, and attached to a tree) has defended this "course" which he justified as follows:
She certainly pushes boundaries. While other artists are simply releasing music, she’s creating a grand narrative around her life, her career, and her persona.
Wow and LOL. Don't get me wrong, I think that she is a very good musician, but so is Lady Gaga. I am uncertain whom I consider better. Well, I admire them and a few others – especially e.g. Alicia Keys – for their being composers. This job is vastly underestimated these days. We don't even know who composed a single song among the famous ones. We're only being shown the puppets with the makeup. It's another sign of the deterioration of the culture. During Beethoven's times, the composers would be more famous than random interpreters and performers.

Lady Gaga: Bad Romance

But she belongs among good musicians. However, the fact that musicians like her are trying to "create a narrative" is completely common. They have some image. They put on various masks. They order the production of perfumes with their name. They connect themselves with various social movements that have lots of backers. It's being done for the regular consumers. It's being done to earn money, to monetize their fame, to make themselves more visible which helps their business. Sometimes it's being done because the stars can't resist – for the same reasons why others are doing that. What's the big deal? Some musicians leave this job to others, some musicians are trying to keep a control over that. It doesn't matter. Despite its ability to earn money, this activity is stupid from a scholarly viewpoint, anyway.

It's particularly insane to promote Beyoncé's optics on societal issues to a college course if Beyoncé herself would have no change to succeed in any meritocratic college non-music course. She has the education of a 7th grader and is widely believed to be illiterate.

I have mentioned Alicia Keys. A year ago, she was named the "creative director of Blackberry". Bizarre. A sign of penetration of the low-brow tabloid culture to many sectors of the human society that are supposed to know better. Blackberry agreed that it has led to nothing of value so this partnership was abolished a few weeks ago. It is unlikely that someone whose main achievement is fame in music will be able to help everyone else, like a troubled producer of smartphones. Blackberry had clearly wanted to "entangle" itself with the mass culture but I have doubts whether this should be their business.

Alicia Keys: New York. The piano assures one that she is a "real musician". I think it's largely true for the other two ladies, too, and I think that their songs are comparably good.

Keys and Beyoncé are also (mostly) black. Beyoncé is a self-described "modern day feminist", something that the hardcore imbeciles at the Feminist Department must have found irresistible. Lady Gaga is an LGBT activist. You may find thousands of such factoids and all of them have rather mundane reasons. The musicians are people like others so like other active folks, they do various things. It's both easier and more beneficial for the rich people to do similar extra activities. But just because Lady Gaga is a great musician doesn't mean that her LGBT activism is fundamentally deeper than any other activist's activism. Beyoncé is a supporter of Obama but just because she is a very good musician doesn't mean that her support of the Obama family is something qualitatively more important than another voter's support.

In the video on this page, the man says:
...It seems like Beyoncé is all that people are talking about lately. So why not make it an educational experience?...
He probably thinks that it is a rhetorical question but it is not. It is a very good question and let me give you the right answer:
Because education isn't the unstoppable instinct to talk about the same low-brow topics as the low-brow tabloid magazines and their readers like yourself. On the contrary, education is the X-factor which distinguishes educated people from morons like yourself.
Even if one could find some "topics" related to Beyoncé and the American race, gender, and sexuality, they would be utterly unrepresentative and misleading because Beyoncé's exposition to these issues is – due to her status – completely different than most other people's exposition. At the end, such a course may really teach you something about one particular woman's life in different aspects than the aspects that made her famous.

Moreover, these topics – whom she slept with or would sleep with and why and what she feels and so on – are the topics followed and understood by the most ordinary readers of the most undemanding tabloids. College education should be something that differs from the average – or bottom layers – of the society's discourse. It's just wrong to give college credits for something that the most ordinary people are doing as their hobby – sometimes at a higher level than the participants of such a course can.

The topic is just guaranteed to be junk. So in the discussion under the article, parents are saying that if they would find out that their kids are wasting their tuition money for similar junk, the kids would have to find a different way to pay their tuition than the parental help! They're right. It's insane to pay thousands of dollars (when distributed) for such a course that is equivalent to reading and listening a few rumors about one singer from tabloids.

This story shows how the tolerance towards pernicious constructs such as "Departments of Women's Studies" is accelerating the intellectual degradation of the Academia in particular and the human society in general. These individuals – and whole "departments" of these individuals – are stupid and aggressively self-confident in their stupidity. They are not afraid to collect fame, money, and credits in the most embarrassing ways. They are empowering the bottom of the society that isn't ashamed of doing the same things. They are bullying the people who don't like this degradation. I am sure that I would face trouble and intimidation if I voiced these common-sense concerns at Rutgers.

The movie "Idiocracy" assumed that the mankind will only become "that stupid" sometimes around the year 2505 but with the contributions of individuals such as the members of the Feminist Department, I guess that the themes of "Idiocracy" will become a rather accurate description of the real world already in this century.


  1. I guess these are evening classes not only for students of Rutgers university right? (a few years ago I took Astronomy evening classes in Dublin UCD and I remember seeing they were also offering classes to discuss the philosophy of the movie the Matrix).

  2. No evenings, Shannon, it is a regular Monday-Wednesday daytime course for undergrads, see

  3. Right... only for 5-6 weeks and no exams ;-). Gender is becoming a global issue. In this case it is addressed to adults who are able to think for themselves.

    In France the Education ministry sends online forms to be filled in by 11 years old kids asking them the most shocking questions about their sexual life in details! It's becoming a scandal and parents have withdrawn their kids from primary schools. Kids are punished if they behave against this new rule of total equality between girls and boys.
    See this:

  4. Shannon - The socialist government in France is trying to undermine the country. First they undermine the institution of marriage with the "marriage pour tous" (gay relationships already were recognised under previous laws but this gives them the right to adopt). Then they recently issued a report calling for France to adapt to its immigrants rather than the reverse. Now they want to indoctrinate kids with all of this LGBT propaganda rather than teach them to do maths and write. The education minister Peillon is the son of a communist and wants to eradicate all features of the catholic church from french society. Of course he is not a catholic or even a christian. If I was to say the same about his religion I would probably have to pay a fine.

  5. A return to racially and gender segregated education is highly desirable. White, heterosexual male students should be taught by white, heterosexual male teachers at all levels. This will isolate the next generation of engineers and scientists from the lunatics and prevent the lunatics from physically and psychologically abusing them.

  6. I'm a little confused, lucretius. Who is the first-person reporter in this account, you / Arnold / someone else?

  7. Arnold, of course.

  8. Fred, these guys want to install a totalitarianism, with a newspeak like in Orwell's 1984.

  9. Hmm, maybe "professor" Allred is really Alan Sokol in disguise---In his words, "She certainly PUSHES THE BOUNDARIES..." ...sounds like "Transgressing the Boundaries":

    I wish these gender and other X- studies "people"
    would all congregate and set up their own institution to pollute so that they stop infesting decent universities. They could get Cornell West as president.
    In fairness, it is not just the feminists in the US. There are things like skate board scholarships, I remember yo-yo scholarships (I think L.S. and P. W. got one...)
    and courses offered on batman etc. It is as if
    on the one hand, physics, math, engineering, chemistry, biology were run by say, Harvard or Cambridge science faculties, and the X-studies by
    the Simpsons.
    A problem with my fantasy, if that if it actually were acting on, the graduates would be short listed for teaching positions in primary schools...hmmm, maybe it isn't a fantasy :)

  10. Nah, nothing wrong having some gay teachers if they aren't propagandists. One could say the same about straight teachers.
    And it certainly wouldn't isolate kids from lunatics---kids are being inculcated in schools about climate change and other politically correct topics regardless of gender identities--and used as agents to "educate" their parents.

  11. I think we all agree that Richard Wagner was at least as good as Beyoncé.
    Maybe somebody would open a course after his antisemitic legacy.
    I expect a lot of demand for this course
    Maybe the Department of Hateful Nazis and Jew Haters will seize the opprtunity and do it...

  12. Well hopefully France will turf Hollande before France totally implodes or the people start looking with nostalgia on the "Reign of Terror",

  13. Gordon, what I find most exasperating is the way the French government keeps finding new subjects of never ending controversies (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, Dieudonne, gender theory...). This creates divisions and tensions within French people. I thought the aim a government was to keep peace but this one loves chaos.
    Hollande didn't manage to reverse the unemployment curve despite all his state-aided work contracts, but nobody talks about it now. We have to talk about gender, or is it abortion now? I forgot. But he doesn't care, he is the king of France until 2017 (maybe 2022). The media love him, 99% of the journalists in France are socialists. Do you know why ? Because journalists don't pay taxes in France. It is a tax exemption that the socialists have always defended even though a previous right wing government tried to stop it (bad move).
    I would love to see Hollande with a lovely small red spot between his two eyes, if you see what I mean.