Fix Features

Mitt Romney


Assistant Professor Brittney Cooper wrote an article for Salon magazine (Tuesday) claiming that Melissa Harris-Perry was right to apologize for mocking Mitt Romney’s black grandchild, but she was still the target of “faux-outrage on the right.”

Cooper said: “What costs white folks a slap on the wrist, or a mildly disapproving look, costs black people our dignity.”

The Rutgers professor said in her article titled, “White supremacy wins again: Melissa Harris Perry and the racial false equivalence,” that Harris-Perry was “an unfair target, left at the mercy of the right’s utter dishonesty on questions of race.”

Read more.

IMAGE: A2Gemma/Flickr


My liberal friends are always posting clever, politically related pictures, quotes and memes on social media.

For example, they were among the tens of thousands of people across the nation who changed their Facebook profile picture to red-colored equal signs when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on same-sex marriage in late March.

Where were College Republicans with an official and clever little icon to post in support of traditional marriage? Nowhere to be found.

So I changed my profile picture to that of a man and a woman, which sparked quite a dialogue. How cool would it have been if that were more widespread?

This week, the College Republican National Committee released a postmortem on what went wrong with the youth vote in the November election, during which “President Barack Obama won 5 million more votes than Gov. Mitt Romney among voters under the age of 30 … enough to ensure his re-election.”

To earn more youth votes to the Republican ticket come 2016, the 95-page report cites numerous ideas and strategies, among them improved social media campaigns.

Gee, you think?!

I know that people my age use their smartphones much more than “at least once a week,” and nearly everybody uses various apps/texting “multiple times per day,” as the report stated.

It seemed odd the notion was startling to College Republican leaders.

I’m no College Republican crusader. I’m a 21-year-old English and theater major at San Diego State University who may or may not still be listed on the College Republican’s membership roster.

But I’m on their side, and while some of the report’s advice is obvious and should already have been undertaken with earnest, on the positive side – it’s a good start.

The strategies show at least College Republicans are doing something, instead of just giving up and accepting labels put on us by Democrats.

The report used focus groups, surveys, and looked at studies to gather its intel and advise students how to address such hot-topics as abortion, immigration, health care and the military.

But the larger issue is image, the rhetoric used by Republicans. Neither resonates with young people, the report said.

We cannot be content to concede labels like “caring” or “open-minded” to the Democrats just because they want us to.

“It is not that young voters are enamored of the Democratic Party,” according to the report. “They simply dislike the Republican Party more. . … Young ‘winnable’ Obama voters were asked to say what words came to mind when they heard ‘Republican Party.’ The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.”

In my opinion, we have to work based off of our own brand. Meaning, we shouldn’t argue why we aren’t racist or homophobic, because that essentially validates Democratic posturing.

Instead, we have to explain why we are intelligent, helpful, hardworking.

Definitely making better use of Facebook and Twitter is a good idea. The report also suggested identifying younger, hip candidates. Sure, why not?

Ultimately, however, we need to articulate our positions better, and not just College Republicans – all Republicans, politicians included.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Obama’s oratory skills are largely what got him elected.

On our side, people like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved have ways of clearly explaining issues. Everything is brought down to simple, intelligent discussions. Why can’t our politicians speak more like that, instead of talking down to people?

Take the health care issue. At San Diego State, it is not required to take an economics class to earn a bachelor’s degree. I assume that is similar elsewhere. So the idea that a small business owner would have to cut employees in order to stay afloat in the face of Obamacare is not inherently understood.

We heard some of that during the Obamacare debate, but not enough. The national conversation centered on Obamacare’s unconstitutionality.

Like the report says, a bad message doesn’t earn votes or support.

“Economic growth, tackling long-term challenges, and focusing on opportunity trumped narratives around the constitution, liberty, and American values,” it stated. “While those things are not unimportant, this generation is looking for outcomes – particularly economic outcomes – that are going to make them better off.”

In the end, the report essentially offered five basic ideas, stating: focus on the economic issues that affect young people  today: education, the cost of health care, unemployment; capture the brand attributes of intelligence, hard work, and responsibility; don’t concede “caring” and “open-minded” to the left; fix the debt and cut spending, but recognize that messages about “big government” are the least effective  way to win this battle of ideas with young voters; and go where young voters are and give them something to share.

It’s a good start.

Fix contributor Emily Yavitch is a student at San Diego State University.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook  /  Twitter: @CollegeFix

{ 1 comment }

The usual suspects will speak this week at the Conservative Political Action Committee confab, a.k.a. CPAC, during which thousands of Republicans, conservatives and libertarians converge to brainstorm, network and strategize.

Launched in 1974 with Ronald Reagan as its first featured speaker, the annual March event, organized by the American Conservative Union, has grown ever since.

However, as much as CPAC attempts to rally, galvanize, and unify conservatives, it often ends up exposing serious rifts and disagreements within the movement. This year’s slate of speakers promises to do the same.

The usual suspects will all be present. Mitt Romney’s silver sideburns will be seen in a major public venue for the first time since his defeat in the November election. It will be interesting to see if his tone and rhetoric have undergone any changes; perhaps a more believable and relatable as person will emerge.

Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, will also be there. He’s been relatively quiet and arguably soft lately. He could really use a hard-hitting, passionate speech filled with great ideas to help regain some of the relevance and credibility he once enjoyed.

Then, for entertainment purposes, CPAC has also invited Sarah Palin, whose relevance and credibility are certainly in their twilight hours.

As mentioned above, CPAC is often a microcosm of intraparty battles. There are two emerging factions within the Republican Party; we’ll call them the “conservatives” and the “libertarians.”

Marco Rubio has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the conservative ranks. Elected to the Senate in 2010, he has earned a place of prominence and is widely viewed as one of the top contenders for the 2016 presidential nomination. Earlier this year, he delivered the official Republican response to the State of the Union address, during which he lunged for a now infamous water bottle.

Contrast Rubio with another first-term senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky. Paul, a polished and subdued version of his father, is the face of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. While Rubio’s and Paul’s speeches at CPAC will likely contain a lot of the same messages, Paul will likely differ on issues of war, defense spending, and civil liberties. We’ll most likely also hear him call for an audit of the Pentagon.

One of Paul’s closest allies in the senate is Mike Lee, a quieter and less controversial libertarian, although many might consider him more principled from an ideological perspective. He is one of a few potential surprises that we may see this year at CPAC.

Ted Cruz, only a few months in to his freshman senate term, has already made a name for himself for his boisterous and often blockading views and votes. As an ethnic minority, like Rubio, he could potentially become a Very Important Person as Republicans seek to adapt to modern demographics.

One more senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, will make his first influential national speech at CPAC. He is well-known in his home state for being exceptionally hawkish on fiscal issues, and it will be interesting to see how well he introduces himself to conservatives across the country.

Finally, Dr. Ben Carson is poised to become the next Herman Cain, hopefully with a few more brain cells. This Johns Hopkins powerhouse will certainly be a favorite of the anti-Washington-insiders crowd.

CPAC 2013 will also feature a number of young political and ideological rising stars.

Jeff Frazee is the founder and Executive Director of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), an organization that boasts a membership of over 125,000 people and possesses a network of over 380 local chapters on college campuses nationwide. Their stated goal is to “identify, educate, train, and mobilize young people on the ideals of liberty and the Constitution.”

A similar organization, Students for Liberty (SfL), which was founded in 2008, is led by Alexander McCobin, who will also speak at CPAC. SfL’s biggest claim to fame is their annual international conference, which draws thousands of youngsters from around the world. Both Frazee and McCobin are expected to deliver speeches with libertarian themes; McCobin’s may prove to be the most libertarianesque of all the speeches at CPAC.

Francesca Chambers is the editor of Red Alert Politics, a popular conservative online news site geared toward college students. Chambers and the two young men represent the future of conservatism in America.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the speaking line-up is who will not be present. The ACU was wise to not include the likes of Donald Trump, to be sure, but many are left scratching their heads at the exclusion of Chris Christie.

Fix contributor Joseph Diedrich is a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is also Director of Operations of Young Americans for Liberty at UW, and a columnist for Washington Times Communities.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

IMAGE: Gage Skidmore

{ 1 comment }

The editors of the Harvard Crimson published an opinion piece today telling three prominent conservative figures who attended Harvard–Texas Senator Ted Cruz, commentator Bill Reilly, and Mitt Romney–to get lost.

“If we could have spoken to these three men,” the open-minded (and doubtlessly diversity conscious) editors wrote, “we would have told them never to come to Cambridge.”

Harvard liberals sure are an accepting bunch. Here’s an excerpt:

If you think Harvard is a revolutionary communist hotbed, don’t apply. If you think Harvard is full of “pinheaded” professors, don’t enroll. And if you think Harvard pollutes the minds of its students, don’t walk out of here with a degree—and certainly don’t get two.

You see, lately, there seems to be a pernicious trend of public figures—especially those on the right—falling in love with Harvard just long enough to benefit from its educational resources and, yes, its social prestige, before turning against our school. Just recently, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas affirmed his belief that Harvard Law School was, during his years as a student there, home to a cohort of “Marxists who believed in…overthrowing the United States government.” In November, Fox News pundit and Harvard Kennedy School graduate Bill O’Reilly glibly referred to Harvard professors as “pinheaded” while implying that the Harvard community is morally suspect for its acceptance of Harvard College Munch, a group for students who share an interest in kinky sex. And last April, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who holds a J.D. and MBA from our fine institution, lambasted President Obama for having spent “too much time at Harvard.”

Such episodes of treachery are apparently attempts to curry favor with the more anti-intellectual members of our body politic. Yet it is finally time that we say enough is enough. We at The Crimson urge anyone who plans on one day scoring political points by maligning Harvard to neither apply, enroll, nor graduate from this fine institution.

That’s right, conservative graduates who dare to criticize Harvard are traitors! If you care to read the rest of the tirade, entitled, “Warning: Do Not Enroll,” click here.

I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that Harvard was hopelessly biased?

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden


The College Fix presents its Top Ten Most Outrageous Stories of 2012, in no particular order:

The Saga of Sandra Fluke

Who knew Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” would be the best thing to ever happen to her? After that, the Georgetown University law student became the spokeswoman for government-subsidized condoms, a victim of the GOP’s alleged “War on Women,” and the darling of the Left, with a spot at the DNC podium and a TIME person of the year nominee. But it wasn’t always so rosy as of late for the newly minted lawyer. During the presidential campaign, when Fluke traveled the country to speak at colleges in support of Obama, she was lucky to draw a couple dozen students, tops. More recently, The College Fix broke the news Fluke was auctioning off an hour of her time for charity. The lucky winner would receive a “Skype” conversation. And no refunds.

Professors Unabashedly Support Democrats, Obama’s Re-election

It’s not even close. Story after story on this website and others reveals professors gave to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign over Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s bid by a margin of about 9 to 1, and roughly the same margin is found when comparing educators’ donations to Democrat versus Republican political candidates – a perfect illustration of the lack of campus diversity. Several College Fix exclusives highlighted this phenomenon, including: Top Obama Campaign Contributors This Year – Professors; Many California University Leaders Back Democrats; and Donations Go to Democrats, Not Republicans, at SUNY Purchase.

‘Sex and God & Yale’ Exposes Ivy League Perversion

Published in August by College Fix Editor Nathan Harden, Sex & God at Yale covers many of the shabby low points of sex at the university: Live nudity in the classroom, oral sex seminars, masturbation how-tos and other examples of dedicated folly. Beyond sexual perversion, the book details examples of academic negligence and a blind devotion to political correctness and moral relativism. One such example is how Yale’s art department approved a phony senior art project that was supposed to consist of the blood and tissue from numerous self-induced abortions. Underlying problems addressed in the book is that Yale, along with other leading universities, has used academic freedom as an excuse for abandoning academic standards.

Podium Turns Into Pulpit During Science Lessons

A renowned University of California-Riverside professor advises students that to save Mother Earth, they should eat vegetarian, only have 1.5 kids – two at the most – take up social justice causes, and lower their standard of living. A Duke University professor names a new fern genus she describes as bisexual after popstar Lady Gaga, and further says the different methods plants reproduce celebrates homosexuality in humans. A prominent UC Berkeley professor links ignoring global warming with watching people die during a guest seminar. These three College Fix exclusives published this year illustrate science is far from black and white, and fairly regularly, professors use the subject as an opportunity to proselytize.

Butler University Student Spotlights Politically Correct Class

A College Fix contributor highlighted a political science professor at Butler University who asked students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom. It was a very well-written and important story, but generally speaking, it’s the type of article The College Fix publishes frequently. But for some reason, this particular story resonated with the masses. It became a phenomenon, reportedly talked about by the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. On the internet, it went viral, read by tens of thousands of people and recommended more than 5,000 times on Facebook. We’re glad it did, but there’s more where that came from. Different students, different professors, different schools. Same problem. Stay tuned.

Jesus, Obama, MLK: What’s the difference?

“The Gospel According to Apostle Barack” is the title of a book penned by a Florida A&M University professor who compares Jesus with Obama and says God told her in a dream to write it. Professor Barbara Thompson argues Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr. walked the Earth to create a more civilized society, but Apostle Barack, the name he was called in her allegedly divinely inspired dream, walks the Earth to create a more equalized society. “Now that he’s been re-elected he is going to help the middle class and working poor experience living heaven here on Earth,” she says. “That is a lifestyle.” Maybe she should have compared Obama with Santa Claus.

Universities Nationwide Snub, Criticize Christ

There’s the War on Women. The War on Drugs. The War on Terror. The War on Christmas. Well, what about the War on Jesus? A College Fix survey of hundreds of religious studies classes at universities across the nation uncovered that, for the most part, professors prefer to snub the subject of who Jesus was and what he preached. Classes that are focused on Christianity, meanwhile, tip-toe around or altogether avoid the topic of Christ’s teachings. Jesus Christ is – without question – the most influential figure to ever walk the Earth, but professors clearly prefer to offer electives on much more obscure matters, which a summary of the survey details in earnest.

Harvard University’s Incest-Fest

At Harvard, students paused from studying things like philosophy, history, or the sciences, in order to celebrate something called “Incest-Fest.” Incest-Fest is, essentially, a campus party where making out and hooking up with as many people as possible is the goal. It gets the “incest” name because the event is open only to residents of Kirkland house–one of Harvard’s undergraduate residences. Thus, students who are living together (as if they were members of the same family, get it?? Incest? So funny, right?) are having sex with one another. America, this is your best and brightest. Are you proud?

Student Athletes Who Cheat, and the Grown Ups Who Let Them

A College Fix series this fall looked at the recent cheating scandals at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, examining in detail the already-heated discussion of just how much influence college athletics has over academia. The articles delved into the important concerns that athletic programs wield too much power and lack sufficient accountability at the collegiate level. The articles also takes to task the NCAA and others in power for the ongoing scandals that not only rocked Harvard and UNC, but other colleges across the nation over the years.

Whites May Launch Race War After Losing Election

As outrageous as that sounds, that’s the hyperbole coming from leftist professors nowadays. Par for the course. In this instance, The College Fix exclusive shined the spotlight on a lecture given at Columbia University after President Obama won re-election, which – according to this professor – marked the end of “Anglo Saxon” domination over the United States and the beginning of a possible race war between whites and Latinos. The professor, Linda Martín Alcoff, a well-known philosopher from the City University of New York, went on to connect an increase in recent gun purchases to whites arming themselves for some sort of possible race war against Latinos. Aye Yai Yai.

IMAGE: Two Star Town/Flickr

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.


The College Fix presents a roundup of the top scandals, screw-ups, and stupid decisions involving college campuses. This week, we tackle the recent election, in which colleges campuses and the people therein – students and professors – played a huge role in President Barack Obama’s re-election.

3) So 60 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds broke for Obama, catapulting him to victory. In key swing states, the margins were more like 75 percent for Obama. Should we be surprised? Absolutely not.  National Association of Scholars President Peter Wood put it like this: “If those who value America’s deeper traditions hope to win future elections, they had better get serious about higher education. Ceding the colleges and universities to cultural and political progressives has led to generations of graduates who have scant knowledge of our nation’s founding principles, a distorted understanding of its ideals, and settled patterns of disdain for genuine intellectual diversity.”

In other words, how can we expect young people to vote for a pro-conservative, pro-capitalist ticket when, day in and day out at universities, they’re taught and influenced by people who have an open disdain for the Republican Party and everything it stands for? Even college students who come from “Republican” homes are completely susceptible to the daily onslaught of liberal bias they’re spoon-fed.

For decades, the leftist slant of universities has been shrugged off, dismissed, even accepted as status quo and not a huge concern. In the meantime, these professors continually create young minions who vote on Election Day. Why do you think Obama and his wife visited so many college campuses in the last few months of the campaign? If Republicans and conservatives want to win elections, they better vie for the hearts and minds of young people, and they can start by addressing what amounts to taxpayer-subsidized leftist indoctrination at college campuses across the nation.

2) The leftist control of campuses isn’t just speculation, either. Professors are squarely in the corner of the Democrats and their platform. One need look no further than the millions of dollars they donated to the Obama campaign this election cycle.

Among the top 20 donors to his campaign were university educators. Employees and faculty affiliated with the University of California system came in as the top Obama donor in the 2012 election cycle at $1.1 million in contributions, beating out companies such as Microsoft and Google. Harvard University came in fifth place on the Top 20 list at about $600,000 in donations, with Stanford University right behind in seventh place at $532,000. Not to be outdone, Columbia University came in at ninth place with $411,000, followed by the University of Chicago at about $325,000 and in thirteenth place. Finally, University of Michigan came in at seventeenth place with $308,000 given to Obama.

At Princeton University, of the 157 educators and staff members who donated to presidential candidates, only two of those donations went to Republican Mitt Romney. The rest went to Obama. Similarly, at the State University of New York-Purchase campus, the vast majority of professors’ campaign donations went to Obama as well.

In fact, I challenge our readers to locate one public university across the nation where professors’ donations to Romney outpaced donations to Obama. Here’s a hint: Don’t bother wasting your time.

1) So fervent was the Obama camp to win re-election that it resulted to mind games – manipulating people to vote for Obama. The president’s campaign team relied on good ‘ol professors to explain how best to do so. The so-called “academic dream team” consisted of a small group of educators who dubbed themselves the “Consortium of Behavioral Scientists” and advised Obama campaign volunteers on what to say, how to say it, and basically use smoke and mirrors to gain the electorate’s favor.

We’re not talking about clever marketing, here. We’re not talking about slick ad campaigns. We are talking about taking what’s known about the human psyche and twisting it, “using subtle motivational techniques that research has shown can prompt people to take action,” according to a report in The New York Times.

“In addition to Dr. (Cragi) Fox, (a psychologist in Los Angeles), the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia.”

… Many volunteers also asked would-be voters if they would sign an informal commitment to vote, a card with the president’s picture on it. This small, voluntary agreement amplifies the likelihood that the person will follow through, research has found. … Obama volunteers also asked people if they had a plan to vote and if not, to make one, specifying a time. … Another technique some volunteers said they used was to inform supporters that others in their neighborhood were planning to vote … Simply identifying a person as a voter, as many volunteers did — ‘Mr. Jones, we know you have voted in the past’ — acts as a subtle prompt to future voting.”

The Obama campaign also didn’t just target the Average Joe voter with these tricks. They used them on college students across the nation as well, as detailed in a recent report by The College Fix.

As a wise man once said, “with great power comes great responsibility.” Using secretive manipulation tactics as opposed to the merits of a good argument to win the White House isn’t just sad, it’s disturbing. What’s worse is it worked.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

IMAGE: Frustated/Arden’s Way of Life/Flickr

{ 1 comment }