Law Professor Requires Students to 'Cluck Like a Chicken' if They Say 'I Feel'
Adam J. MacLeod, associate professor of law at the Jones School of Law (Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama), has completely had it with overly sensitive Millennials and Gen Z students who use their "feelings" as supposedly valid arguments against "the wisdom of the ages." If they want to take his classes, he writes in the New Boston Post, they'd better be prepared to use logic. If they don't, he'll make his touchy-feely students "cluck like a chicken."
In the column, MacLeod quotes from a speech he recently gave. In it, he truly wipes the floor with the "education" Millennials' and Gen Zs received in their childhood years.
Reasoning requires you to understand the difference between true and false. And reasoning requires coherence and logic. Most of you have been taught to embrace incoherence and illogic. You have learned to associate truth with your subjective feelings, which are neither true nor false but only yours, and which are constantly changeful.
We will have to pull out all of the weeds in your mind as we come across them. Unfortunately, your mind is full of weeds, and this will be a very painful experience. But it is strictly necessary if anything useful, good, and fruitful is to be planted in your head.
Later, he explained:
You have been taught to slap an “ism” on things that you do not understand, or that make you feel uncomfortable, or that make you uncomfortable because you do not understand them. But slapping a label on the box without first opening the box and examining its contents is a form of cheating. Worse, it prevents you from discovering the treasures hidden inside the box.
That is why he doesn't want to hear any "isms" in his classroom. He especially doesn't want to hear the following "isms," all of which are favorites among Millennials and Gen Z:
“Classism,” “sexism,” “materialism,” “cisgenderism,” and (yes) even racism are generally not used as meaningful or productive terms, at least as you have been taught to use them. Most of the time, they do not promote understanding.
Next, professor MacLeod took aim at Millennial favorites like "equality" and "diversity":
[Y]ou have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.
Furthermore, diversity and equality are not the most important values. In fact, neither diversity nor equality is valuable at all in its own right. Some diversity is bad. For example, if slavery is inherently wrong, as I suspect we all think it is, then a diversity of views about the morality of slavery is worse than complete agreement that slavery is wrong.
Similarly, equality is not to be desired for its own sake. Nobody is equal in all respects. We are all different, which is to say that we are all not the same, which is to say that we are unequal in many ways. And that is generally a good thing. But it is not always a good thing (see the previous remarks about diversity).