indoctrination at UCSB

by Mark Rock

(Part 1 of a Series Examining Education in California)

Look up the word “indoctrination” on Google, and you’ll find it defined as “the process of inculcating (teaching by repeated instruction) a person or people into an ideology, often avoiding critical analysis.” Depending upon how one views “critical analysis,” a case could be made that even left-leaning encyclopedic sources located on left-leaning search engines take a dim view of indoctrination.

Given the definition’s emphasis on teaching and instruction, along with the hand-and-glove relationship between leftist politics and public education, it is perversely fitting that there is no institution in our country that shuns critical analysis more than public education. Together with an unblemished commitment to inculcating students “into an ideology,” the integration of education with indoctrination yields a new word for our times: indoctrication.

One of the best examples of indoctrication is to be found within the rarified halls of our own public university, UCSB. Any prospective graduate student visiting UCSB’s Gevirtz School of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology’s website in search of information about prerequisites and other information relevant to graduate studies in psychology must first get past the following: “CCSP stands unequivocally united with the Black Lives Matter movement”.

UC System Endorses Radical Left Wing Movements

It’s important to note the capitalization of “Black Lives Matter”: UCSB is not merely seeking virtue by stating the obvious in the most embarrassing, patronizing means imaginable, but rather endorsing the institution Black Lives Matter (BLM), and its associated “movement.” For those who aren’t familiar with BLM, it is a leftist organization whose founders were avowed Marxists. Some of the campaigns BLM and its leadership have embarked on over the years include calls to “disrupt” the nuclear family and “burn down this system.” (The President of the New York Chapter of BLM suggested this course of action on June 20, 2020, as cities went up in flames at the hands of rioters carrying “Black Lives Matter” signs. Just in case there was any doubt as to what he meant, he clarified by stating, “I could be speaking literally.”)

Just as BLM makes no pretense as to its agenda, neither does the Gevirtz School. As stated in one of the bullet points underneath the statement of unequivocal support for an organization advocating arson and other means by which to “disrupt,” “Faculty, staff, and students will engage in training and critical conversations on the role of racism, white supremacy, and social justice work within academia, the GGSE, and CCSP.”

It doesn’t require doctoral-level speculation to determine what direction said “conversations” will take, but that’s among the more benign considerations. Consider some of the other word choices: “training”? “Will engage…”? What of the students who have the aptitudes and skills to become excellent clinical psychologists, but either don’t agree with the mission behind the “training,” or do agree with it but don’t appreciate their education being hijacked in service of it? Will they find a welcome home within a university that has made it quite – one could say unequivocally - clear that one must not only toe the line of a certain political dogma, but be radically committed to it to pass his or her quantitative methods class? Most important, what does any of this have to do with the discipline of clinical psychology?

Overpaid to Push the Partisan Agenda

When one considers other factors, such as the fact that BLM has not only advocated for, but has organized and sponsored domestic terrorism (including, consistent with the New York President’s call, setting fire to occupied buildings and then blocking firefighters from accessing the scene and rescuing trapped children), it’s intolerable. No organization associated with violent behavior, no matter how tacitly - be it the Weather Underground, The Ku Klux Klan, or BLM – has any business finding refuge, let alone endorsement, within UCSB or any other public university.

This example is but one department, in one university, within the University of California system. How many more times is this taxpayer-funded indoctrication replicated throughout all our California State universities and community colleges?

According to the Public Policy Institute, California spends 12% of its General Fund on higher education, which comprises the third largest General Fund expenditure, following closely behind K–12 education and health and human services. Most of this ($12.3 billion), is divided among the three public higher education systems: the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC). Michael Drake, president of the UC system, makes over $1 million annually in salary and benefits alone out of that budget, Jeffrey Millem, Dean of the Gevirtz School, enjoys a compensation package of over $375,000.

The federal government has finally taken steps to remove divisive DEI programs that promote little more than mediocrity in federal services and alienation among those providing them. Yet, in California, billions of our dollars are still spent on state-funded education, many of which, like UCSB, make no secret of their commitment to continued race baiting and to fanning the flames of discord via toxic DEI-based programs.

In an era in which our government in Washington D.C. finally seems to be taking its head out of the ether, it’s worth asking how much federal funding these state institutions receive to perpetuate what is a clear assault on true higher learning.

The answer, and the additional questions that arise along the way, could be quite instructive.