I'm going to take the counterpoint that the male penis is a construct and the penis is responsible for global warming. It's Armstrong and Getty extra large because four hours simply enough. This is Armstrong and Getty extra large. You know, I gotta say that was not the highbrow tone I was hoping to take in today's discussion. I'm disappointed in you that argument was good enough to get published and a university uh publication that that can't possibly be. You wouldn't think so. Perhaps you've heard us on The Armstrong and Getty Show discussing the experiences of Peter begin who taught philosophy at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon for a decade and has recently resigned for reasons that we will let him describe. It's always great to talk Peter. Welcome. How are you, sir? I have never been better, truly, I am a I am so happy right now. That's awesome. How are you, guys? We're terrific. We won't still of thunder though. Why do you feel that way? Well, because I don't have to compromise my integrity because I was working in a job in which I was hired to teach critical thinking and ethics, and then the conditions at the university made that impossible. Uh. And and I've just been really touched. I you know, I wrote a letter of resignation and I published it on very was the sub Stack, and I detailed what happens to people when they question or challenge the orthodoxy. And I have been flabbergasted by the literally worldwide reaction, the publication of the letter into multiple languages, the unbelievable amount of support that people contacted me just to say thank you or we appreciate what you did. I mean, it's just it's so touching. You know. I was tearing up last night just reading all these emails and support. I mean, it's truly amazing. I think there is an aspect of this, uh that we're gonna be talking about that is is kind of nice and warm feeling in that we and you and Matt Taiebe and and all sorts of thinkers who might disagree about everything have realized, oh my gosh, these sacred principles are are actually at stake. And we're not prone to hyperbole around here, which probably makes us bad talk show hosts, but we actually believe what's happening in our elementary high schools and university campuses is actually dangerous to civilization. And honestly, it feels good to be working with people we generally disagree with to do what we feel is right. It does and appreciate you having me on. And what's interesting is, you know the local paper here, I want to have a conversation. I want to have a sincere conversation about what's happening in our university system. I want to have a conversation about the president of Potland State University said that basically racial justice is his highest priority, highest priority of the institution. And you know, I want to have a conversation with the left about as you know, I'm a liberal atheist. I want to have a conversation with Matt matt Ow, with CNN, with MSNBC, with the local paper here, the oregon Ian, with op B, Oregon Public, Nobody, the whole left media media ecosystem is having none of it. They just don't want to have that conversation. And I find that that is fascinating. Do you think that's because they agree with the radical walk left, or because they're afraid of them, or they're afraid I think it's part of it is the same problem you see within the university is mirrored outside the university, and that is, don't talk to people with different views. There's even a word for that, it's called platform, and don't give the Nazia platform. Don't And it's not even that the problem is that somebody would give me a platform. The psychologist Stephen Pinker says that he calls it the left pole. In other words, when you're on the far left, anything even slightly to the right of that looks like you're all right or a Nazi. And so I think it's guilt by association. I think it's that they view themselves and I'm at least in partial agreement with this, that we really are in a cultural war and they don't want to. Well, actually, maybe I'll just put it on you. So, why do you think that the left wing, anybody's center of left is refuge? You guys will have me on. Glenn Beck had me on, Tucker Carlson had me on, and not only to talk about this, to talk about a wide range of issues, to challenge and question in probe, why don't we see that on the left. I blame the internet. I certainly blame social media. The social media tends to be left, particularly Twitter, and because it tends to be left, the the outspoken voices of the fringe left, the crazy people that we're talking about, they their importance is being elevated to a level that is not you know, doesn't make any sense. But the regular left is so scared of that vocal Twitter left that I think that's what drives all of this stuff. I'm gonna I'm gonna, well, all right, I'm gonna I'm gonna throw out something that may seem crazy, But here's my this is the next level of thinking about this. Our Lord vote a famous has a famous line of title, The Master's tools cannot disable the Master's house. The master's tools cannot dissemble, take apart the master's house. What is the master's house patriarchy, sexism, racism, oppression? What are the Master's tools? Reason, science, dialogue, discourse, etcetera. I believe part of the rot that's happening now that we're seeing is because there is a deep seated belief that the master's tools, that conversation, discourse, etcetera. Are enabling racism, xenophobia, the patriarchy, etcetera. So to have a conversation with someone like that is you don't want to give them a voice. The only thing that you will do, and there's a whole line of academic literature on this, the only thing that conversation will do is it will reinforce the patriarchy, it will reinforce bigotry, and it will demean the lived experiences of people who listen to that conversation and be hurtful. So I think that there is a moral infrastructure in place in which many on the left. And I don't think that this is in any way native to the left, Like you don't see this with known Chomsky or the kind of old school economic leftist. You see this exclusively with woke people. This is like, like my friend Dad said said, it's like a parasticization. It's a parasitic value system that's latched onto traditional leftism. So that's why I think that the the anybody left of center won't talk to me or anybody else. Well, there are a bunch of big ideas there. I wish I jutted them all down, but it's starting with the the expression about the master's house. I just reject at premise outright, and and at the heart of this, the idea that their ideas are irrefutable because they're sincerely held is one of the craziest things I've ever heard in my life. Can you imagine Peter walking into a symposium or whatever and saying, first of all, I'd like it to be made clear that my ideas are unimpeachable, every single one. And of course you get a big belly laugh from scholars. But then you say, no, no, I'm perfectly serious. You can't use logic, you can't use data, because those are the tools of the oppressor. I mean, that's it's it's so obviously a con it's hilarious to those of us with skeptical minds. Well, that's the other thing about this. I mean, that's the thing that I just marvel at. It's so insane, Like people are ripping down statues, people are assaulting the police, they're des drowing storefront windows of mom and pop businesses, you know, working class and for what do they do. It's so stupid, for Chad, for for a for an anarchist zone in which people are raping and murdering each I mean, for what, what is the what is the goal of this whole thing. It's so much easier to rip down and destroy than it is to create. And that's also I think part of the problem of why the left wing media ecosystem won't have people on, and it's because I not only do they not value conversation and they think that conversation is actually bad, but I think that's a convenient excuse to not do intellectual work to understand the other side of the argument. Now that's not to say that the right wing doesn't have a lot of crazies. I mean, of course it does, but it has a different kind of problem. And I would argue that the problem of free speech and free inquiry is absolutely rudimentary to human progress. I would say, you make a lot of good arguments, and Ian Joe are talking about some very intellectual stuff there. But I can tell you just from being in this business at a very base level, I don't think Rachel Mattow on MSNBC or Jake Tapper on CNN agree with any of this woke stuff. But if their bosses get a hundred emails or tweets from the woke left complaining about having you on, that's enough to frighten them off. And it's not for ideological reasons. It's just advertisers and ratings. Okay, So so then so if that's true, then they have no integrity, correct. Yeah, yeah, that's a good so. Right, So we're either we're either in a position that these folks believe it but won't say it. And if that's the case, why would you listen to them because what they're saying is not what they're believing. So there's a kind of inauthenticity built into the mechanism. Yeah, these go ahead. I was just gonna say, I think I think it's somewhat like Trump and some people on the right plane foot see with you and on or whatever. They think it's just a fringe group of crazies and better to have them on our side than not, and they're not enough to do any damage. Well, turns out they are. And I think that the Rachel Maddows and Jake Tapper's and that crowd is going to find that out about the woke crowd too. That kind of just playing footsie with him because it's easier and keep advertisers is going to turn out to be a bad idea. Well, in the same way that for instance, Ted Wheeler is the Mayor of Portland found out in a very painful way that no, you can't control that whirlwind or that pack of pit bulls, and just because they're you know, nominally on your side, they'll get out of control eventually. Yeah. That that's another conversation. Ted Rulers is a public disgrace and he should immediately be impeached and held accountable for what he's done to the City of Portland when he personally his negligence. The homicide rates are astronomical. He I mean, this is another conversation, but he we can. I'd love to have a conversation, but I want to stick it on. I want to I want to keep it to The university is just now. This is not a ininge bunch of nut jobs like Q and on. These are people who control major academic in most academic institutions in English speaking world, and they have positioned they're paid for in my case apportency. The university is paid for by taxpayer funds. Many of these people, if not most of them, have jobs for life. They're looking at the university as an indoctrination mill. They're teaching people and um training people to be activists based upon scholarship. That's totally, totally bogus. Again, the parallel to Q and on doesn't hold up. Yet. Does the right have crazies? Have, no question about. Everybody has crazies, but these crazies, the woke crazies, control academic institutions, our knowledge, our engines of knowledge production right and it's and the messages are grievance filled. The West is awful, Capitalism is awful. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect by any means, but I'm saying they have a very specific message that they're pumping out and nobody benefits from They don't even benefit from that. That's the other crazy thing about this. Nobody benefits from racial hatred, from division, from the universities, you know, racial justice being the highest part. Nobody is benefiting from these things. It is an ideology that is killing us all well. As a person who has worked with young people of all races for most of my adult life, I believe that to my core, that the very worst thing you could possibly do to a little child of colors to tell them they can't possibly achieve what they dream of because the white man is keeping them down. I think I think you are doing work so unholy and evil. The clan at its height couldn't dream of being that affected as effective. Hey, I want to go. I want to make one point because it's a prism through which I think the rest of the conversation could flow. One of the things you said in your letter of resignation, which I've read several times, is that. And this hit me like, I mean, like one of those fundamental principles you learn when you're a little kid, something Thomas Jefferson said. It just it fills your soul with excitement because you've realized the great truth. And what you said was the freedom to question is our fundamental right. And I thought that was one of the truest things I've ever heard. That's at the basis of everything right. The freedom to question is our fundamental right and the role. And I think the next line in that letter was talked about what our duty is. We we continue to forget that, and the university's goal is to remind us that that's not only our right, but that's our duty. But Portland's state is practically forbidden questioning correct only about certain things, though only about things that contradict the more orthodox. You can question other things you know, like what's the best way to plant plant a tree? You know, how far down should it go? But only questioning certain things. So I guess I want to put out a call. I want to say two things. I think it's really important when you're talking about racial justice, Like, if you actually want racial justice, the first order of business is to give every American an education of public education, particularly AK through twelve, education of the first rate, independent of skin color or socio economic status. And we have, my opinion is that we have let down an awful awful lot of people. And the solution to that is not equity, in other words, trying to gerry read outcomes delution. The solution to that is the quality of opportunity. And so I think what I would like to see conservatives the space that they move in is well, many spaces, but in the context of this conversation, I'd like to see them move into honest and sincere attempts to fix school systems in the worst neighborhoods for the worst people, independent of their skin color. That's the first thing. The second thing that I would like to see is for all this talk about diversity, diversity is a code word for intellectual homogeneity. Right, if diversity really meant diversity, then for example, you wouldn't see the excuse me, the vile and bitriol spewed that Larry Elder particularly, and all the horrible names that he's been called because he's a black man who doesn't toe the party line. Right. So the other thing that I would like to see, and I just on Glenn Beck and I asked him this. So here's my question to you. Um. One of the things that we see in this in our university system is culling of voices. They came for the right, then they came for the concertors, and they came from the moderates, then they came for the liberals, and and now they're in their own little chamber of derangement. So my my question to you is do you think we should have a Mark A Marxists in an economics department at a university. Wow? That's an interesting and I absolutely believe Marxism ought to be studied and known and understood. I love the phrase chamber of derangement. By the way, So that's gonna be my new band. That's a good one. That's a good album title to um. Yeah, that's a really interesting question. I if there is the free of exchange of ideas, if there's the marketplace of ideas functioning, I don't mind some guy saying no, no, no, Marxism is correct, because any rational examination of the evidence will render that opinion. You know, silly, um. So I'm not particularly threatened by it. I don't love it, but that's fine. So so I do love it, and I'll tell you why. So I love the best proponents, people who actually believe what they teach. So I'm an atheist. I teach an atheist class, and I have Christians, many very very prominent Christians and apologists come in and teach the best arguments to the existence of God. And the reason is because I don't believe those things. And so I would be doing my my students and injustice if I taught them without having You know, um um, I was crazy to see this. Let let's say this way. Students need to learn from people who believe things in the most diverse ways possible. So I love the idea of their being a Marxist, even though I hate Marxism, because I think our students need to see our freedom night. They need to see people with psychology and behaviors. They need to see, they need to see people who have um a wide range of beliefs, and we need to give them the tools to figure out for themselves what the answer is. I just might be I was gonna say, I was gonna say, my my discomfort is with the hundreds of millions who have died at the hands of communism, And I mean, would you would you likewise be infused about somebody teaching actual fascism, not antifa's view of fascism, actual fascism and trying to convince the kids, look, this is a better system. Yeah. I think it's less about convincing and more about framing an argument in the most charitable way possible. So yeah, I have no problem with that, even though I disagree. And the reason for that is not only so that the kids can get the best representatives of the of the ideas, but they can make the decisions for themselves. Like that, the moment that you say, oh, we can't have this person here or we can't have this person speak out, you you were in very serious danger of becoming the things that we hate. That's a very good So we have to allow a system that has the free exchange of ideas. Now, somebody recently, I don't have it in front of me, but put out a tweet about nine eleven being the white, hetero capitalist patriarchy professor from Syracuse University. Yeah, and the university did exactly what he should do and what it should have done, and said, look this this academic So freedom of speech in an academic context is even more privileged, even a higher value. It's like we need people like that too, you know, whatever, rock the boat, say anything they want to speak. That's the whole idea of protection from tenure. And the university issued a wonderful statement that I wish my university would have issued for me, that we may or may not agree, but this person has the right to speak openly and honestly. And then the students. That was a statement. But I would like to see the kind of intellectual change um wrestling with ideas and the type of academy in which, look, you can disagree with people, you can agree with people, But here are the people who have they believe this, those are publishing it, they have researched it. We've given you the tools to make an analysis and the examination. Now go forward. You do that and our democracy will flourish. Right, you teach people not to attack other people on the basis of the mutable characteristics, but to engage their ideas, and we were all better off. Peter, Maybe we can compromise. Let's keep the Marxist chained in a cage and just bring them out for lectures. Would that be fair? No, we have to give everybody, you know, and that's why I said a Marxist not. But the problem comes when you stack a whole department with people who have the same beliefs, and then the kids will go into that and they're saying, well, everybody, my economics professor believe this. He's written all these books. This is true. No, that's why you need intellectual diversity. And the other thing is nobody will trust the bodies of literature and the quote unquote scholarship coming from you know, about really important things like global climate change, because they'll say, well, why should I try? People have actually said this to me, why should I trust that? Everybody here is a leftist? And they're right, right, right, But if if you had a mix of people, right, if you in a climate science you know, if you pee Christians and everybody different views and they came to a convergence of opinion, they came to a consensus. Now that would be something that people would then look at that and say, Okay, wow, these people like me, they represent my voice, they agree with other people like you and I are agreeing about this stuff. Yeah. I mean, this is the fundamental principle upon which our democracy has to be based. We have to have open inquiry, we have to have free speech, and we also have to teach people. You know what, if somebody doesn't agree with you, that's okay. You can still hang out with them. They can still be your friend, you can still go drinking with them, you can still marry them. It's okay. In fact, it's probably good if they don't agree with you about everything, because then you can have some fun and good conversations. But we're strayed from that because we're not allowing people to have different that's my book, how to have impossible conversations. We're straight aid from that because those conversations don't take place in the university. And it's not only that they don't take place. It said. If somebody has a view that doesn't conform to what's morally fashionable, it's not just like they're wrong, but it's like they're a bad person. And that's the narrative. People are pointing out. If you don't agree with this, you're a racist, you're a bigot, you're a homeleful. Well how about this? How about maybe I don't agree because I don't see the evidence for how about how about that? Well? Yeah, amen to that, And that's the speaking of the fraud we were talking about before. The idea that I'm a racist for disagreeing with you is literally, you know, begging the question in the classical sense. I mean, well, what am I supposed to do? Just stand here and get punched? I guess ideologically, but I know Jackie had something just to make things easier. What what's the name you like to put on this, this whole thing is woke ism? What you like best? Or or you know? It's nice that when we throw on the term Marxist we all know what we mean. I think it it helped combat this if we have an agreed upon term that everybody's using. Yeah, I don't. I don't think you could have an agreed upon term. The people who participate in woke ideology don't like woke Helen pluck Rose, author of Cynical Theories, which is the v book on the subject, called the Critical Social Justice Yes but genius book. She calls it critical social justice. Whenever I write it, I write it social justice uppercase S and upper case J. So there is no consensus on this, but I like to term it either social justice, social justice ideology, or woke ideology. Sometimes people call it a worldview too, which is true. It is actually a worldview. It's a worldview which bases itself on the fact that the West is inherently racist, sexist, etcetera. And we have to destroy the institutions that leads to those things. And I just want to throw this in so I don't forget to say it. Um, you mentioned integrity earlier when we're talking about I mean, I mean, one of the most interesting things that's come out of this is you. I think you needed this that. Um. Everybody that's reached out to you for an interview is on the right, and no one, no liberals have I mean, like you mentioned earlier, that's amazing. But you brought up the term integrity, and I can't imagine more integrity than what you've done. I assume you're not an independently wealthy man, and you quit your job because, um, because you believe in this stuff too much. And I mean, I'm not kidding. I will remember what you did for the rest of my life whenever I come to a crossroads like this. Yeah, I I I appreciate that. I never wanted any of this, um, and I did. I just could not stay at the place where I had to compromise my integrity anymore. I just couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. So, you know, I think I can tell you about what led up to that, or I can. I mean, we can go from many places. Yeah, actually, you know, it's funny. I was about to go there. You mentioned Helen pluck Rose and her co author James Lindsay's Cynical Theories, and the paper you wrote, the Conceptual Penis as a Social constra and then the work you did with James and Helen is one of my favorite things that's ever happened. Can you tell us about the conceptual penis as a Social construct and then the other papers and what what we were trying, what were you trying to prove or or or you know, exposed, and then what was the reaction to it. Sure, happy to tell you about that. So the conceptual penis was a hoax paper, and Alan's social there are actually penises. Um, it's really I'm glad you actually read the paper because I think that the papers is really funny. That's the other thing about ideologs. They have no sense of humor. That so one of the things that we were trying to do is to show that these bodies of scholarship they're not rigorous, they're not based on evidence, and they are ideological. And so we wrote the conceptual penis is a social construct and we published it in a in a low ranked It wasn't a great journal. It was a new journal as well, and we received a tremendous amount of criticism, and much of that criticism was justified. And that criticism was you didn't prove what you thought you proved about these disciplines. If you want to prove it, you need to do the following things one, two, three, four, five, etcetera. And so I said to to to Jim, to James lindsay, dude, this is awesome. They told us exactly what we need to do, so let's do it. He's like, all right, so then we wrote twenty papers and we forwarded absolutely insane, totally deranged thecs. I probably can't say because many of them are sexual on the air right now. Oh no, it's a podcast. If we have to, we'll believe it. Go ahead, Okay about you know, penetrative anal sex and transphobia and you know, putting people in matt white males and chains as a whole of experience of reparations in the classroom. And that one did not get public. We we got called by the Wall Street Journal before we published it. But the goal was to say so we we did exactly what people wanted us to do, like exactly what they wanted to do. So but instead of saying, wow, maybe there's a problem here, like maybe this is something we need to think about or be more reflected on because this is informing public policy. Instead of doing that, they came after me. They tried to take my job. That's their response to this. So I want to make sure it's it's it's clear what you were trying to prove. You were trying to prove that these fields that masquerade as science aren't science. It's not just that they're not science, it's that it's that they're the musings of ideologues. There's no evidence for these. So so the background piece that you need to know is, as a general rule, there are maybe a few exceptions to this, but this is almost a rule. Seven papers in seven years his tenure. Right, there's a job for life. I had no background in this stuff. Jim had no background. Hell and had no background. Gym's a mathematician. And we delved into the literature. We did a deep dive in the literature. We really read the journals, we read the articles, we did our homework plus plus and the point was to show that the policies that we're shaping our institutions, first the university or the university system as an institution, and then the policies as they were seeping out, these are not not only are they not scientific, they're not anything. They're just a bunch of people get together. We call it a term Brett Weinstein uses for when we went over his house, he's the former Evergreen professor, and we were explaining the grievance studies thing. Early on he said, oh, it's like idea laundering. So a bunch of idea loogs get together and they have Um, they have an idea and they're they're in academia, and they published that idea. They discharge the moral impulse in a journal and then comes out as the other side, as knowledge. So then they go around pointing when you say, well, how do you know, they point to the bogus scholarship that they themselves meet up. But that's not based on evidence. And not only that, you couldn't publish anything in there that went against what what was morally fashionable, Like the whole ecosystem exists to prop up certain moral conclusions and they teach that to people, credential themselves, get tenure, and then hire other people who believe the same things. That's how that's why you have ideological capture of the university institutions. That's the mechanism. That's how they've done it. Boy, I love that image of idea laundering. That's a great metaphor. And and by the way, you've ruined the dog park for me, uh you with your rape culture at the dog park paper, which was hilariously brilliant. Well here here's something that we don't talk about because it's just too complicated. Um So everybody loves the dog park and and you know p traditions, can I rape culture and looking at it through the lens of black feminist criminology. I mean, it's just and that the total Well, yeah, I chose I chose that. I chose that because I had to find something that they could not criticize, like what was the thing? And they could never criticize black feminist criminology because that would be both misogynists and racist. So I choose to look at dog dog humping incidents. And the other thing is there was some utterly insane number of dogs and talk comping incidents that that I uh, that we alleged to have reported, and you know, people stopping their dog rage by doing jumping Jackson just I mean these crazy ship dog humping incidents or d h I s if you will. Yeah. Yeah. So so the thing we never talked about that that goes on along the lines of the conceptual penis because it's a very complicated idea. But we got in the number one gender studies journal in the world, there are two of them. Um, we we got in this paper that argued that was against us, we specifically named us, and we talked about the conceptual penis in this paper and we said that basically, we're terrible people. Uh. We titled the paper when the Joke's on You, as if the joke were on Jim and I for writing the conceptual penis. But the fact that we published a paper the joke about us that was bogus and said things that were absurd was when the joke was on them. So the joke was actually on them when they're thinking that the joke is on us. So we know, was that clear? Yes, that is incredible Hall of Mars. It's very complicated to what we don't talk about it. But so so that's the part of the problem is that people are basing their conceptions of reality on these journals. And what you have is not only are they grievance filled, but they're racially divisive. They teach people. Look, I know I right now he's become a friend of mine, young kid who's at Oregon Health Science University. I can actually read you what it said, um the screenshot he sent me. But they've asked students to self segregate on the basis of race. I mean that's crazy. Yeah, that is just amazing. Now, who were the liberals here and who are the conservatives? So that's why those terms don't really mean anything. You're absolutely right, Well, conservatives at this point, good ones, I think, are conserving liberalism. But anyway, exactly that, Dave Rubens made that point, and I think that's absolutely true. I don't even know what those terms mean anymore. And so people will say, well, you're liberally conserved. Well what do you mean, Like, give me a specific policy and then I'll tell you my answer. But you know, people like you know, rubrics, umbrella terms like oh, I'm this, I'm this. But the fact is that in this cultural moment, the political reality is more complicated than that, it's more nuanced, and you all so seeing I publish a piece about this in the American mind, I call it the Great realignment. There's a realignment now if there's a political and ideological realignment based upon things like rules of engagement. So while you and I may have different I don't know what you guys think about abortion, but I'm pro choice. Well, we we may have differences of opinion about that, we agree how to solve those differences of opinion, right, We debate, we converse, you can even protest if you want. Um. But but the new, the new threat to cognitive liberty are you know, the are the woke. Are the woke, and they don't play by those rules of engagement. So if if you publish something or you say something they don't like, they go after your family, they try to get your job taken away from you, they file complaint, they weaponize offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion. So you're talking about people who do not abide by traditional rules of engagement. So that's one thing in the in this great realignment that we're experiencing. I mean there are other factors as well, you know, like there's a truth that can be known, there are more philosophical things, but I think it Behoovese people. You have to be willing to step If you're a liberal and you're against woke stuff, you have to be willing to step across the line when Ted Cruise, for example, says something and agree and you will agree with him because it's true. Not because you have to agree with every single thing Ted Cruz says, but you have to look when when someone says something that's true that corresponds to evidence and facts, you have to stand up to it, even if it's against your own tribe. In spite of the consequences. That's what intellectual integrity means. Well, the you know, the the intellectual mainstreams running in the other direction. Though, this is something we've talked about a fair amount. Is that to to signal your allegiance to your tribe, you bellow opinions that you don't even think are are real, but you know it's a tribal indicator. And the more ridiculous, the more clear your indication of tribal loyalty is. So the counter fact that the counter factual I would love to be able to run or in a parallel universe, is if Trump had won the presidency, who would be avoiding getting the vaccine at that point, because not because of any the science being any different, just because who was behind pushing it at the time. I think that would perfectly prove your point. Yeah, that that would I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but the utter, unmitigated and fifty five years of my life, I think this is the worst catastrophe of this country and is signaling a new error from US. The unmitigated to call it a call Afghanistan and catastrophe is actually not even remotely doing it justice. But you know that's the thing, like, well, what if Trump were in or could you take the words of the sentence and you can when they say black, can you put white in there? Can you put white in it? But even in those cases, um that these folks have had many years, like an incubation chamber to incubate ideas. So they've changed the meanings of words. So, for example, racism is now has a power component instead of the traditional definition of discriminating me against an individual in the basis of a racial stereotype. Right, So they changed the meanings of words, and it makes it really difficult. Look, life is difficult enough, fake news, Russian bots, we have all this stuff we have to contend with, and on top of that, we have people running around who changed the meanings of basic words. I'm telling you, like, you know, I get all these emails from my kids school. They go to p punctions, equity, equity, equity, equity. How many people do you think actually know what the word equity means. Yeah, we've talked about the fair amount. That's one of the that's one of the ways they line up so many well meaning, suburban, college educated white gals and guys as well, as they've redefined these words, and I hear anti racist, and if I didn't know what Abram x Kendy has written and what that really means, I think, well, of course you've got to be anti racist, but it's come something completely different, right, and those sorts of things, and that's by design, by the way, of course, that's not a bug of the system. That's a feature of the system. And so look, so one of the things people say, well, was there a final straw for you? Like, what was the thing that finally? So I tried to I'm going to relate this to our conversation. So I tried to get a meeting with the president of Portland State University. Right, So a lot of things I didn't put in the letter, like the faculty Senate passed a resolution and the National Association of Scholars Oregon chapter has an amazing video that they took from the Faculty Senate meeting when they passed an actual resolution about criticism of ideas being harassment and specifically criticism of critical race theory. Right. Can you imagine the people in the engineering school saying, hey, criticism of this bridge design is the engine is harassment or philosopher saying, hey, criticism of my ideas of free will or ans free will or whatever. It's that. No, that's insane. The the the more ideological you are. To keep your ideology in place, you have to have things like political correctness, You have to have things like blasphemy laws. So the university passes faculty resolution. And then one of my colleagues wrote a hit piece on me and the Chronicle of Higher Education, and I responded to that, Uh, well, let me not hit piece. Let me rephrase that by saying, uh, she wrote an article about me, and and uh and and basically the idea was that criticism of ideas is harassment. And I responded in that And if you guys have a moment, it would be to read that, because it would give you context for for this whole thing that's happening in the academy. Criticism of ideas is not harassment. Criticizing and immutable property of a person is a no no because that person can't change it, so it doesn't do them any good. For example, to criticize someone in a wheelchair, or to criticize me because I'm fifty five. I can't change the color. I could change the cold, my hair, I can't change my age. So so I was in the dean's office. So I asked the president for a five minute meeting repeatedly, and his staff told me repeatedly, he's too busy. He's too busy for a five minute meeting. Okay, Finally I managed to have like a three minute meeting with a dean. And this individual told me, you know, I really did my best to watch my tone. I was extraordinarily respectful. And I actually had known this this person, so it's not like they're total stranger to me. We live in Portland, we know each other. So I said to this individual, you know that Portland's State university made the list of the talk of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education. It's Greg Glukyanas book. He's the guy who wrote the Caddling of the American Violence. Yeah. Yeah, So I said, you know that I would urge your viewership to your listeners to fact check me when I say this, fact check every don't believe anything I say, fact check everything. Poland State University of worst colleges for free speech. And he turned to me with total sincerity and said, it's a good thing to be on those lists, and I was so utterly blown away, like because in other words, this wasn't a bug of the woke ideology. This is a feature like this is actually baked into the educational system. This is a feature. And it was in that moment I realized I had to quit, and then the pandemic hit and that kind of through through things for a loop. But um, I mean that is a month. That is a grown task. I mean think about that, like, that's not a symposium. You know. In the Greeks, they get together, they talk, they dispute, they argue, they laugh, they drink, and said, no, this is a church. These are yeah, you know, I'm reminded of I'm reminded the final sceniversally, the final scene in Brave New World where the you know, the all powerful leader essentially says to the dissident, um no, I don't take it personally. I'm not angry at you or anything. Here's what we're doing, here's why we're doing it. You don't fit in, so you need to go away. And the cool rationality of it is always, you know, has always chilled me. And for that guy to say, oh no, no, that's a good thing. I mean that's like finding out he's a pod person or something. I mean, right, and and that's the other thing. So so that's when you really just let that idea percolate and then detonate, like when you really think about what that means. Here, individuals who are positive they have the truth, they want to look at the system as an indoctrination. It's kind of a factory where people come in and they put ideas about specifically race, gender, and sexuales, etcetera. But whatever is, you know, the moral orthodoxy. They put that in your head. They no longer have the north Star's truth. And when you do that, the natural consequences there can't be free inquiry and open expression. I mean, there can't be think about it like this, think about it like this. So if the president again, I want everybody to fact check every single thing I'm saying. Do not take my word for it. I don't have the exact quotation, but it's something like the highest priority of the university is racial justice, right, Okay, So let's just think about that. If the it doesn't even matter if it's racial justice, it doesn't matter what is If the highest priority of a football team is winning, which is what the highest priority of a football team should be right that any other priority that cons that conflicts with that would by definition be a or priority, right, right. So that's why they don't, for example, have diversity requirements on professional sports teams, because any other priority would have to be d prioritized or lowered. So, if your highest priority is racial justice and free speech or free inquiry or open expression of ideas can flis with that, you have to always side with your highest priority by definition, because it's your highest priority. Well, right, And we're in a situation here where what has long practically forever been the highest priority of a university, seeking of the truth, the exchange of ideas is now seen as detrimental to the new orthodoxy. So it's not just not as higher priority, it's specifically as it's a sin, it's a point, it's right, it's not above, it's a feature. And to avoid that, that's why you have to have intellectual, political, uh an ideological diversity. You have to have that Marxist in there, a Marxist. You have to have that um Keynsian, you know, you have to have someone teaching Hiak, you have to you have to have that intellectual diversity, so that the highest priority, so that the institution doesn't become something other than a means to enable people to understand the world and to figure out what's true. And if they're wrong, you know what, that's okay too. But nobody was forced feeding them that idea. They made the best. They did the best they could to come up to to be sincere and ask honest questions to try to figure out what's true. And they kept the value in mind of being willing to revise their beliefs. And that's another characteristic that ideologues don't have. They're not willing to change their minds. And that's a fundamental feature of what it is that makes someone rational. And we have we are not teaching that. We have lost that and what have we bartered it for. We've bartered it for an ideology that separates and divides us. If you try to get the if you try to get the universities down to one Marxist, there's gonna be a lot of Marxists on the street corners saying will share for food or something. But um my, my final question for you would be I used to read about the cultural revolution in China that happened through what the late sixties, early seventies, and I would read that stuff and I think, I don't I just don't get it. I mean, like, how how could this ever happen? It didn't quite make sense to me. I now get it completely, because it's starting to make sense to me in a in a very scary way. Do you think, um, do you think we could get there? Do you feel you feel like do you feel like it's getting worse or better or enough people waking up to it? Where where are we on the continuum there? That's that's a that's a great question. I don't know the answer to that. I know that this is not sustainable. I don't know what the expiration data is. People don't like living like this. Um. And again, like you said before, the whole thing is so stupid. You know, it's not like that they're offering. You know, what's the end result of any of this stuff? And that's the other thing. It's so idiotic. Just think about white fragility. It doesn't work with anything else. Why should it work with whiteness? I mean, it doesn't work with witches. You're a witch? No, I'm not. That's proof that you're a witch like you're denialist groups of the thing. So it doesn't work with literally anything else. Why would it work with I mean, the whole thing is so stupid. It's like what the junior high school people do to each other. But yet it's who doing an unbelievable number of our of our intelligentia, and it's captured the institutions. So I don't think that this is sustainable. I think that this will do unbelievable damage to our institutions. I think it already has done damage to the institutions. Who is Ah, no, you go. I was just gonna say, I hope you're right about the cultural revolution thing, because I see some of the the earmarks of it in the kids are being urged to either ignore their parents or turn them in or tell their teachers about them, and that sort of thing. And the idea of dragging your own parents into the street to see them beating is so horrific most of us can't imagine it. I think you had to have a communist system for that to catch fire like it did. Um. You know, Hitler send into power through the ballot box famously. Um. But you know, one more aspect of the cultural revolution, totalitarian systems. The rest of it are show trials, And I wondered if you could just spend a couple of minutes on your experience with the Title nine investigation. Yeah. Well I had to sign paperwork saying I couldn't talk about it, so I can't really talk about it. Wow. Yeah, well, now it was there just out of curiosity. I don't Peter, you probably don't know this about me, Joe Getty. I almost went to law school, so I'm the show's legal expert. Um Was there was this a contract? Was there consideration in exchange? You you you gave up the right to talk about this in exchange for what it was an exchange for I? I am. You know, we're represented by a union. And and that's the other thing that I've changed my mind on, probably a conversation for another show. I do not like teachers unions one iota, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms, like, as a fact, I would have lost my job long ago if not for my teachers union in general and not for the guy who heads the teacher's union. I was seeing this guy literally like every day from complain. In fact, he went up for renewal and I asked you to write um a letter like I don't know, two or three years in the row because he was seeing me. So I've kind of had a change of change of mind on the importance of teachers unions. But yeah, I know, it's it's it's it's uh, it's interesting. So the title line investigations, there's no due process in that, so you don't have access to what you're being infused if you have to infer that from the invest the gator. And now, look, it is often said that we are not um that people who consider us their enemies, we do not say kind things about. So I'm gonna tell you something unbelievably truthful about the title line investigator in the Office of Diversity. You could accuse these people of many things, but the thing you cannot accuse them of is not being thorough. These people are the most thorough people. I mean, they had a gustopo like thoroughness and compliment. They were calling in form of students, colleagues, t s, people I did you know, independent studies with people I had known like years ago. They went back like years and they were summoning them to the Office of Diversity. They were I mean I was walking around campus and people were coming up to me, that's what the whole beating your wife and family, and then like other people would come up with this I hear about you didn't want I was just, you know, the the particularly um insidious part about that is, you know, you know, my daughter is adopted from China, so like there's another level of hideousness that's going on there, and there's really nothing you can do. I mean, you can quit, but you can't say you know, you can't even see that, you forget anything. You can't even see the charges, right, And then I love the outcome of it. Loved it in quotes and that it is so bizarre it's actually it reminds me of one of Iron Rand's most famous quotes about you know, we don't expect you to follow these laws. We expect you to break them, because once you're a lawbreaker, then we own you. And at the end of your title nine things you mentioned in your letter of resignation, they essentially said, you're not guilty of these bizarre charges, but as long as we've got you in our clutches, you're not allowed to do this. You have to do this, and we think you ought to get counseling, and and it's like, wait what, so I, UM, that's right. So I requested a meeting. After that meeting, and then I read a very long statement UM to the chair of the department and the Chief Diversity Opics, and my union guys, Phil phil Lesh, who was again unbelievably phenomenal, um, and and among those, why am I not allowed to render my opinion or teach in such a way that my opinion about protected classes can be known? When there were entire wings of university architecture dedicated to activism. In fact, at the time I think alignment that was the Women's the Gender Studies Department of Women's Studies or whatever it's called. The p s U had the word activists or some variant there of seven times on the web page. So you have a whole you have entire departments basically anything with the word studies in it. You had entire departments that are geared towards activism. Explicit we not only rendering their opinion, but actually geared to make activists. But I can't render my opinion about a protective class of teaching such a way that it's known and that's the other thing. Think about how crazy that is. So if someone comes to me and says, hey, do you think this minority should be enslaved and in chained? I have to say I cannot render my opinion. I mean, it's so crazy on so many levels. You know. I picture you and Copernicus and Galileo sitting at a bar and just staring at your bears and saying, I hear your brother, I hear you as you ran into rather similar orthodoxes and results. Um, hey, Peter, I hope we can stay in touch. We're absolutely hoping to support you and people who think like you as much as we can for as long as they keep us on the air before some woke group gets us fired. But it's great to talk to you and and and chin up. I mean, we really admire the hell out of it. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that you guys have always been terrific supporters and I'm I'm very grateful for that. You can find me on Twitter at Peter burgosand g H O, S S I N. And I just started a nonprofit that's going to fight back about this. It's called UM National Progress Alliance, and we're at National Progress Alliance dot org. So I appreciate you guys have always been been supportive, and it's a it's a great way to remember that we are Americans and we and our disagreements actually make us stronger. And you know, I would love to go out and have beers with you guys and hang out and you know, have spirited conversations to the early morning. I'll see if Galileo is available. All right, thanks many, good to talk, all right, thank you. All right. See that's principle, man. You don't see that that much these days, no, I think, Um, we've all had situations like this in our lives where uh, we don't want to do a certain thing, but we end up in a situation where the realized there's no choice. This is not what I want to do, but I've got no choice. And that's where he was. Yeah, I I absolutely admire his character and I know he would have done this in a variety of circumstances. In his letter resignation is brilliant and persuasive in the rest of it, but in a weird way, Portland's state made it easy for him in that they were so patently crazy and unfair and oppressive and unwilling to listen to reason. I mean, he really had no choice unless he was just gonna drink himself to death and pretend that it wasn't happening. Well, when one of the deans says, no, it's a good thing we're on that list of being the worst university for free speech to America, You're done. I mean what there's unless you think you can reform them from the inside. You obviously can. You're done, you know. He mentions he was sworn at and spit on walking across campus on more than one occasion. He's obviously a man of the mind and a man of peace. I had a punched people in their heads. But that's why Peter Gashian is a better fellow than I am. I find a quad with a pool cue or a sack by Nichols. Amen to that, brother. Extra large