Revisiting University Culture and Taxation

If you’ve taken a university humanities course in the last ten years, you might have noticed something that seemed less about education and more like a revival of certain ideological beliefs. Imagine a professor, dressed in academic robes, espousing cultural Marxism. Figures like Che Guevara become celebrated icons, while the typical white, heteronormative male is often viewed critically. The new practices? Well, they often include pronoun ceremonies and acknowledgments of land rights.

At the core of this belief system lies a fundamental idea: “The wealthy must contribute their fair share.” This sentiment isn’t just echoed in lectures but also resonates in countless protests, expressed with fervor reminiscent of religious chants.

Some might argue for equality in tax rates; after all, if everyone pays the same percentage, the affluent still end up contributing more in actual dollar amounts. However, this form of equality doesn’t align with the redistribution advocates. They seek, or maybe demand, a type of “fairness” that effectively penalizes success more harshly. Anything less, they might argue, constitutes injustice or inequality—though there are many who haven’t ventured beyond the realm of gender studies.

I raise this issue not merely to dredge up old grievances related to a feminist philosophy instructor. Rather, I find common ground here. Yes, those with substantial resources should incur a steeper tax rate. But, I’m convinced the starting point should be these very universities.

It’s almost ironic how those who teach these concepts often fail to recognize the unjust nature of their own reality. A powerful legislative proposal could potentially hit elite institutions like Harvard and Yale significantly, imposing a tax of up to 8% on their investment earnings.

This isn’t just a minor adjustment; it’s sufficient to make any development director lament over their ethically sourced, carbon-neutral caffeinated drinks.

These elite colleges idolize figures like Alfred Kinsey, whose ideology largely influences the political leanings of their faculty, fostering a pervasive disdain for American values. Yet, decades later, these institutions must now grapple with the consequences of the ideologies they’ve long promoted.

There’s a certain poetic justice in this scenario. Perhaps we should consider it divine irony. How fitting that these institutions should fund the very foundational repairs they’ve neglected over the years.

But let’s not stop there.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon could pave a way for students to seek refunds for inadequate education. If a business fails to deliver on its promises, why shouldn’t students expect the same principle to apply in academia?

Moreover, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., leading the Department of Health and Human Services, should consider facilitating lawsuits against professors who diagnose gender dysphoria without adequate training and push for irreversible surgical interventions for anxious teenagers. Some might struggle to diagnose a flat tire, yet feel confident labeling your daughter as a son.

Only when faced with tangible accountability might these institutions begin to reconsider their actions. Only then could they evolve beyond being what John Calvin dubbed “idol factories,” which fabricate false idols and unproductive ideologies at unprecedented speeds.

Let’s initiate that fund tax. Let’s explore litigation. And as the doors to our so-called higher education establishments begin to open, perhaps we might finally reveal the deeper truths they have long endeavored to suppress.