RSS Feed
November 18th, 2015 
Awake Goy 
It’ll likely never happen – at least not in today’s overhyped, overly
sensitive, politically correct environment – but it needs to: The voting
age should be reset to 25 years old, and the sooner the better. ~ J D Heyes
“How can students too spoiled to tolerate debate weigh opposing political arguments? They can’t,” begins a recent USA Today
column by Glenn Harlan Reynolds.
Reynolds is a University of Tennessee law
professor, assessing the less-than-adult behavior by students on
the campuses of Yale University and the University of Missouri.
Reynolds, author of the book The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself and an op-ed writer for USA Today,
noted that the requisite number of states ratified the 26th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution in 1971, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18,
but “in retrospect,” he says, “that may have been a mistake.”
Back
then, he says, the Vietnam War was in full swing and becoming more
unpopular by the year.
As casualties mounted in a U.S. military that
was, at the time, mostly filled with conscripts because the draft was
still in effect, the popular thinking was that, if young people were old
enough to be sent to war, they should be old enough to vote for (or
against) those who send them. For the same reason, many Americans
believed that the drinking age should also be set at 18.
“But now
I’m starting to reconsider,” Reynolds said. “To be a voter, one must be
able to participate in adult political discussions.“It’s necessary to
be able to listen to opposing arguments and even – as I’m doing right
here in this column – to change your mind in response to new evidence.”
The ultimate ‘crime’
The
evidence suggests, he says, that whatever you might think about the
18-year-olds of 1971, today’s 18-year-olds are not at their level and
are unable, then, to participate rationally in political discussions.
What’s more, he says, “even the 21-year-olds aren’t looking so good.”
“Consider
Yale University, where a disagreement over what to do about –
theoretically – offensive Halloween costumes devolved into a screaming
fit by a Yale senior (old enough to vote, thanks to the 26th Amendment)
who assaulted a professor, Nicholas Christakis, with a profane tirade
because his failure to agree with her made her feel … unsafe,” said
Reynolds.“His wife, Erika, who’s a Yale lecturer on childhood
education, had challenged a campus-wide request that students be sensitive when considering costumes that could be offensive.”
The Atlantic‘s
Conor Friedersdorf wrote: “Erika Christakis reflected on the
frustrations of the students, drew on her scholarship and career
experience, and composed an email inviting the community to think about
the controversy through an intellectual lens that few if any had
considered. Her message was a model of relevant, thoughtful, civil
engagement.
“For her trouble, a faction of students are now
trying to get the couple [her and her husband, also a professor there]
removed from their residential positions, which is to say, censured and
ousted from their home on campus.Hundreds of Yale students are
attacking them, some with hateful insults, shouted epithets, and a
campaign of public shaming. In doing so, they have shown an illiberal
streak that flows from flaws in their well-intentioned ideology.”
‘People who can’t discuss rationally shouldn’t participate in running a great nation’
Personally, I question the “well-intentioned” description of their behavior, but The Atlantic is a bastion of liberalism
so I get it.
Like Reynolds, I agree that the irrational outbursts
and intolerance prove that such students (and there are many of them)
aren’t ready for prime-time politics, because they are incapable of
rationally considering ideas different from their own.
“This
isn’t the behavior of people who are capable of weighing opposing ideas,
or of changing their minds when they are confronted with evidence that
suggests that they are wrong,” Reynolds wrote.
“It’s the behavior of
spoiled children – a characterization that Friedersdorf, perhaps
unconsciously, underscores by not reporting the students’ names because,
he implies, they are too young to be responsible for their actions. And
spoiled children shouldn’t vote.”
“People who can’t discuss Halloween costumes rationally don’t deserve to play a role in running a great nation,” he concludes.
Continue reading HERE.
November 17, 2015 – KnowTheLies
References
digg
muti
del.icio.us
google
reddit
facebookSource Article from http://www.knowthelies.com/node/10937
Posted in 
Tags: 
