Conservatives Need Not Apply for Prestigious Scholarships

Conservatives Need Not Apply for Prestigious Scholarships, by Christian Schneider.

Last week, the Rhodes Foundation announced its 32 American scholarship recipients. The third paragraph of the statement accompanying the selections reveals the foundation’s true goals:

“For the third consecutive year, the class overall is majority-minority, and approximately half are first-generation Americans. One is the first transgender woman elected to a Rhodes Scholarship; two other Scholars-elect are non-binary.” …

Once the ultimate academic award for American students, the Rhodes Scholarship has morphed into an identity contest, where racial and sexual classifications appear to have trumped academic rigor. …

Hitting the jackpot of intersectionality

Drop dead, non-left:

The Foundation claims to reward “character, commitment to others and to the common good,” but those characteristics apparently apply only to progressives publicly dedicated to social-justice causes.

Of the 32 scholars chosen for 2020, only 13 fail to list involvement with progressive causes on their résumés. Of those 13, none lists interest in or experience with a conservative cause — they have chosen to present themselves as politically neutral. (Most of these “neutral” students are involved in the physical sciences, where there is no liberal or conservative way of curing leukemia.)

In other words, students on the left feel free to assert their progressivism, while students on the right know that if they want a scholarship, they better keep their politics a secret. …

This bias is well established in the case of other prestigious academic awards for American students. In 2018, not one of the 59 winners of the $30,000 Truman Scholarship reported being involved with Republican or conservative politics in any way, while 64 percent of winners espoused traditionally liberal causes.

Nudge politics. Reward one side, but not the other, and pretty soon you get what you paid for. Two previous examples with far reaching consequences spring to mind.

  • Starting in the 1950s, governments and banks only funded PhDs in economics at universities that supported Keynesian economics. Lucrative and prestigious government consulting jobs only went to PhDs in Keynesian economics. By the 1970s, President Nixon famously exclaimed that “We are all Keynesian now!”, and all universities had gone Keynesian. However, before 1930 Keynesian economics was considered crackpot. It was a doctrine that greatly favors banks and builds government power at the expense of the private economy. It just doesn’t work other than in the very short term.
  • Climate scientists who boost the high-sensitivity theory of carbon dioxide get rewarded with money, junkets, promotions, and sometimes even rock star status. The ones who stubbornly stuck to the evidence were sidelined or sacked, starved of funds, and shunned. Even so, the 97% is still an exaggeration! But give it time.

This is how the modern bureaucratic state buys the consensus it wants (with your tax dollars). Students now know to be PC.