Mike Adams
Recommend this article

Dear Johnny:

Thanks for getting in touch with me last week to express your concerns about your sociology class. You are not the first student to ask me why sociology professors spend most of their class time talking about the need for redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, and bigger government. Nor are you the first to ask me why your sociology professor didn?t major in economics. I know that your question, ?Just what the hell is sociology, anyway?? was probably rhetorical, but I will try to answer it as I address your other concerns in this brief letter.

First of all, your sociology professor probably isn?t that bright. She may have wanted to major in economics, but opted for sociology because the discipline is so much less demanding. If this sounds too harsh or sarcastic, just take a look at the grade distribution posted outside of a classroom in the sociology building. Last semester, while giving an examination, I noticed that the test scores for a junior-level sociology class were as follows: 34 ?As,? 2 ?Bs,? 1 ?C,? 0 ?Ds,? and 0 ?Fs.? Such a distribution produces a class GPA of 3.89. Remember that students only need a 2.0 GPA to graduate.

Something else you might not realize is that many graduate programs in sociology only require a 3.0 GPA for admission. Some of those programs require students to take the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), but only as a formality after the student has already been admitted. Sociologists don?t like standardized tests, because they think they are racist and sexist, despite the paucity of questions about NASCAR and deer hunting.

Lowering standards to boost GPAs is the best way to make sure that a discipline is filled with the least bright and least motivated students. Setting a GPA requirement for graduate admissions well below the undergraduate average is also a bad idea. It merely guarantees that incompetent students will wind up teaching sociology in college. It isn?t that way in economics. That?s why your sociology professor isn?t an economics professor. That also helps explain why she is a Marxist.

But, aside from low IQ, there are other reasons why your professor is in love with Marxism. You may have been barking up the wrong tree, however, when you asked me how someone with a Ph.D. could adopt such a failed political philosophy.

Yes, you were right to point out that the communists killed 100 million people worldwide in just 72 years. Yes, you were right to point out that sociologists cannot explain the fall of the Berlin Wall within the Marxist dialectic. Yes, you were right to point out that they cannot even explain why the Berlin Wall was necessary in the first place. You were also right to be outraged by your professor?s espousal of Marxism, given that your relatives fought to defeat communists and totalitarians over seas, while your Marxist professor?s biggest problem is spilling her four-dollar skinny latte on her $25 leather-bound edition of The Communist Manifesto.

But you were wrong to characterize Marxism as a political philosophy. Marxism is an emotional disorder, not a political philosophy.

Wealthy people sometimes accept Marxism, not because it has ever worked, but because they feel guilty about having more than other people. But, more often, it is accepted by those with less who are angry, usually because they lack the talent and drive to succeed in a capitalist society. This realization often occurs at a ten-year high school reunion after they see people with less schooling and fewer degrees but with more money than they have. They don?t want to compete with these people. They just want the IRS take their wealth and ?redistribute? it against their will under the threat of incarceration. They also like to call conservatives ?fascists.?

Johnny, this semester is going to go so much faster if you avoid answering the silly questions that your Marxist feminist sociology professor poses in class. Instead, your only chance of learning depends on your willingness to ask your professor questions about her emotional disorder. Here are some suggestions:

1. Which leader killed more Jews in the 20th century: a) Joseph Stalin or, b) Adolph Hitler?
2. Which of the following is more perplexing: a) A Jewish professor who calls herself a Marxist or, b) A black professor who calls himself a Klansman?
3. Whose idea was it to turn over Eastern Europe to Stalin after winning it from Hitler: a) Franklin Delano Roosevelt or, b) His advisor (and Soviet spy) Alger Hiss?
4. Which worldview is true: a) The Biblical perspective that human nature is flawed (to the point where utopia is impossible) or, b) The sociological perspective that we are inherently good until corrupted by society?
5. Which problem is harder for sociologists to explain: a) The logical assertion that inherently good people combine to form a ?bad? society that, in turn, corrupts previously good people or, b) The empirical fact that sociologists consistently explain around ten percent of the variance in delinquency while refusing to use the term ?free will? to explain the other 90% of the variance.
6. And (regarding question #5, part ?b?) how can the team scoring one run be called the ?winner? against a team scoring nine runs?

And, of course, you will want to ask your professor to explain the rise and fall of the Berlin Wall within the Marxist dialectic some time before Christmas vacation.

But, please, don?t take any more sociology classes after this one. Go to the psychology department to learn about human behavior and the business department to learn about economics. Let the sociologists talk about their feelings on their own. Eventually, the discipline will collapse due to internal weaknesses.

Recommend this article

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Letters to a Young Progressive: How To Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand.