Some very lucky chairs and deans at the University of South Carolina are going to be having some exceptional special fun time this week, what with the asthma-breath phone calls and all-caps emails. Because certain passages in a social work textbook commit Reaganbad Thoughtcrime!
A University of South Carolina textbook has one student whistleblower outraged over its accusations that President Ronald Reagan was sexist and conservatives view people as incapable of “charity” and "lazy."
The textbook, obtained by Turning Points USA Founder Charlie Kirk, was authored by Karen K. Kirst-Ashman and used for the three credit course “Introduction to Social Work Profession and Social Welfare.”
This textbook is wicked, tricksy, false, etc.:
The mandated reading includes sections such as “Conservative Extremes in the 1980’s and Early 1990’s,” which claims Reagan “ascribed to women primarily domestic functions’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency.”
Anna Chapman, a sophomore at the University of South Carolina, told Campus Reform “I can not even tell you how angry I was when I read that.”
I'm rather sorry the statement in that last sentence is not literally true.
The rest of it is also sketchy.
The excerpts sent to Campus Reform make no mention of Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Supreme Court Justice; his appointment of the first female U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick; Elizabeth Dole, the first female appointed to Secretary of the Department of Transportation; or that over 1,400 women were chosen by Reagan to fill powerful, policy-making positions.
This is cute.
For openers, O'Connor was nominated for reasons that the 21st century GOP would consider tyrranical. For closers, my link beats yours.
“Conservatives ‘tend to take a basically pessimistic view of human nature. People are conceived of as being, self-centered, lazy and incapable of true charity,’” the text states.
Wealthy individuals are also a topic of scorn throughout the course reading, which argues that “[the] wealthy find that having a social class of poor people is useful.”
“First, poor people can do the ‘dirty work’ for rich people that the latter don’t want to do,” such as dangerous or menial jobs. “Second, having a poor social class emphasizes that the wealthy are higher in the social structure. . .and allows them to look down on classes below them.”
And this is wrong?
Anyway this textbook sure is Anti-American and is surely the Number One Reason cheerful young wingnuts don't go in for professions like social work, opting instead for more Helpful gigs like pretending to be oppressed for fun and profit.