William Felkner, a self-identified “conservative libertarian,” studied social work at Rhode Island College, a state school. His views unsurprisingly clashed with those of his professors, who consider the social work course – and the profession itself – to be “devoted to the value of social and economic justice.” In keeping with this philosophy, one of his professors assigned him to lobby the state legislature for a progressive bill.
Felkner refused to speak against his beliefs by lobbying in favor of progressive legislation. His term paper instead reflected his honest opinion of the bill. As a result, his professor gave him a failing grade and Felkner ultimately never completed the program.
He sued.
It would be churlish to ask whether, and why, Felkner was genuinely interested in taking up the so-called profession of social work—devoted, as he knows or should know, to “helping” good-for-nothings who, with very few exceptions, are not worth trying to help—in the first place.
After all, anybody genuinely interested in helping most of them would have them neutered or spayed and return them to whatever god-forsaken cesspit they were whelped in. It would be a few years’ work, tops.
A.C., I agree with you. The fields of sociology and social work are ideologically corrupt. Any young libertarian-conservative considering the profession should check out the program first, before entering the program. University is expensive, and continually arguing with corrupt professors and fellow students isn’t worth the effort and expense. The program was corrupt before he entered the program and will be corrupt after he leaves it.
There is a general rule that a young person should choose a field where he or she has the skill and interest to do well. William Felkner make have both, but he should read about the field of social work, and realize that the corrupt profession would not welcome him into it.
P.s., I taught at a university for 35 years, teaching some policy courses. And I have long felt that any professor who grades a student on policy differences is a quack professor who should not be teaching. This is how bad the “soft” humanities and social science departments have become.
A small victory in a flood of progressive sewage.
It says “he won”
What does that mean?