When did universities start to become about pseudo-activism

it sort of always was intertwined with politics, students and academicians have always been involved in it

the problem is nowadays western universities have become a vehicle for neoliberal and marxist propaganda, this started in 1960s as others in the thread have mentioned

Universities have beens hives of villainy and degeneracy since their inception.

Not the OP, but I would make this distinction based on the cause. Let's say you're protesting your country's involvement in a foreign conflict, and this involvement *is actually a thing that's happening*, then what you're doing is activism. However, if you're protesting the lack of basic human rights for women in the west, even though they obviously already have all basic human rights, then what you're doing is at the very best outrage masturbation.

Did they though?

I'm not American, so l could be mietaken, but l thought that was just a trend exclusive to the so-called "prestigious" colleges like Berkeley and Stanford, and other liberal arts schools. They're just an extremely vocal minority that grabs headlines by sperging out.

In my third-world hellhole of a country, university students are considered a force to be reckoned with by the older generations. If students take to thr streets, whatever it is they're protesting against is going down. And yet, that's only happened once in my life, and l'm 22. My point is, l don't het the "pseudo" part you're talking about. You're either an activist or you're not. Talking about how much you hate X when cameras come to your ultra special snowflake school doesn't change anything because everyone expects that.the shit gets real when all students nation-wide make common cause and take to the streets or oppose an issue. That's activism, nevermind the pseudo part.

I'm rambling, but like l said, l'm not American; l was just drawing on my uni experiences and my limited knowledge of how stuff works in the US.

I think you fail to understand just how cancerous the average American college activist is, you guys protest over legitimate issues like tuition hikes, American college students would never protest over shit like that but always about whether or not Starbucks is heternormative or whatever, it's becoming a huge joke here at this point.

The world population was smaller and a smaller proportion had access to education yet they produced geniuses like hotcakes.

I get that, but isn't it just limited to a few places here and there that are extremely vocal about it?

Berkeley is the paragon of cancerous Ametican students, but do students in Iowa or Missouri or Maine do the same thing? I thought that only happened at colleges in ultra-liberal hubs.

At my relatively conservative campus, we have had our fair share of controversy and activism. We had a girl make up rape charges against some guy on a whim, but she ended up getting outed for it. The mindset is prevalent, but it certainly isn't to the extent of places like Berkley.

>yet they produced geniuses like hotcakes

Can you show that they had a greater "genious percentage" than now?

1830s

Napoleon was a mistake.

Yes we do, they are just shoved into laboratories and stem research 24/7 to produce scientific breakthroughs that will give their "protectors" more excuse to receive scientific fundings from various donors or states. That killer robot that runs on nukes ain't easy to build.

This is utterly retarded because it's obvious that their definition of human rights differs from yours. It's like saying that there's never been people protesting for "justice" because it wasn't your special snowflake edition for it.

Kek, there were university student riots in the Medieval ages.

In East Asia, the Confucian Academies were heavily fucking tied in the political life.

>This is utterly retarded because it's obvious that their definition of human rights differs from yours.
Yeah, you're right. Their pet definition of "basic human rights" truly is retarded.

>It's like saying that there's never been people protesting for "justice" because it wasn't your special snowflake edition for it.
It's literally nothing like that in any way, shape or form.

When University became more about landing a career.

>decreasing liveable incomes from blue collar work or work in general without degrees in some field.

>people treating school like it's all about dollar signs instead of actual knowledge.

>schools reaping the benefits From people in need of a higher education and increasing tuitions based off demand.

Obviously I'm not giving dates but we can conclude that somewhere near the decrease in industrial work and the raise of tuitions is where Schooling became about dollar signs instead of production of fine schollars.

Obviously the top universities have held their weight to an extent. We still have the most important people in the world atteneding top schools. But even then it gives way to the belief that only the elite can gain access and concludes my theory that Higher Education is in itself a corporation. It most likely has been many years prior to the increased demand for higher education from people across western society, but at least some places and some countries offer free education.

Also education is what you make of it. Learned a little something about this guy.

>John Henry Newman. "A university training is the great ordinary means to a great but ordinary end"

I still personally learn something new everyday I go to University, but then again I'm studying something I love, and not something to land a job.

>This is utterly retarded because it's obvious that their definition of human rights differs from yours.

The definition of 'fundamental human rights' is agreed upon by the UN though, and by massive international consensus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

To say women in the west lack fundamental human rights is nonsensical. And to say that 'they have a different definition of human rights' is a legitimate argument is even worse, because it invalidates the idea that human rights are fundamentally applicable to ALL human beings (i.e. not just women, or women in western countries).

>"but the UN said..."

not the same guy, but when has that ever really influenced anything?

I was amazed the first few weeks in university how many folks of my age were actual marxists. I had never talked to one in my adolescent years and all of a sudden they're everywhere.

As soon as women were allowed in them.

sadly this is true

>not the same guy, but when has that ever really influenced anything?

Its not about the UN enforcing anything.

It's about the fact that the governments representing most of the planet got together and agreed by consensus on what constitutes a 'fundamental human right'.

This agreed upon definition then passed into most governments' interpretations of human rights, and as such serves as the general definition of human rights for most people on earth.

Also, its tenets are enshrined in international law, so ultimately, it has about the same influence as the Geneva Convention does on the treatment of soldiers. This being that while it is not always respected, it is agreed by almost everyone that these treaties set out what is and by exclusion is not a fundamental human right.

And finally, it's not 'but the UN said...'. The UN is just a cooperative council of governments. The representatives of most of the governments on earth are the ones who 'said' what was and wasn't a human right as defined in international law.

Hillsdale college has allowed women in on an equal basis to men since 1844 and remains a bastion of intellectual standards.