Per information provided by Clemson students, the first-year experience class at Clemson University is designed to provide freshmen with ethical guidelines on how they should act on campus is filled with “progressive propaganda.”
The course, referred to as CU1000, provides students with ethical guidelines they should follow, such as calling out a roommate for not recycling (and thus not “respecting the environment”), assuming males at parties will sexually assault intoxicated females, verbally condemning co-workers for making risque jokes, and opposing North Carolina’s HB2 bathroom bill.
One of the aforementioned guidelines listed in the course is an example where a student wanted to recycle, but his roommate was not interested. When the roommate stated he did not see the point of recycling, the course suggests that the pro-recycling student force his roommate to recycle, or he does not sufficiently care about the environment.
When a student selected a response that was apathetic towards their roommate’s recycling habits, the course prompted that the student has a lack of respect for the environment.
“At first glance, this response appears very reasonable and respectful of [the roommate’s’] viewpoint (Good Judgment and Patience),” the course description reads. “However, it treats [the roommate] as though he were not a reasonable person, able to change his mind and behavior in light of good reasons and arguments (lack of Good Deliberation and Promoting the Common Good). Tyler doesn’t even notice that [the roommate] may just be lazy. In other words, [the roommate] may not really have different ‘priorities’ and may be easily convinced through a fair discussion on the subject (lack of Circumspection). At the end of the day, this kind of response reveals that [the pro-recycling student] is not that serious about the importance of recycling. If he were, he wouldn’t give up so easily, and would try something to make [the roommate] change his behavior (lack of: Respect the Environment).”
Another one of the examples provided in the course is a situation where the students taking the class are confronted by an intoxicated girl who is about to leave a party with a group of guys. The course describes the situation as if the girl was in a place to presumably be sexually assaulted by the group of guys.
However, the example states the student taking the course does not know the girl, and therefore, has no knowledge of if the guys happen to be friends with the girl. Instead, the question is framed to make it seem like the guys simply want to sexually assault the girl. All examples provided are situations where the student would confront the guys and stop their assumed wrongdoing.
One of the other scenarios the course lists is one that involves coworkers making “offensive jokes,” and demands that students intervene and stop the “offensive jokes” from taking place.
The course provides another example:
You are new to a company, and find that your desk is just around the corner from the break room where others interact throughout the day. You love your work, and have enjoyed meeting everyone. One morning, to your surprise, you overhear a group in the break room engaged in some friendly banter, which includes racially sensitive and offensive jokes.
The only solutions to this hypothetical situation include condemning the co workers involved in the banter, regardless of the fact that they were jokes. Upon answering this question, students are provided with a prompt that says “Do Not Cooperate in Evil,” as means of condemnation to individuals who participate or even simply remain silent during the jokes.
The course also lists an example where a “inconsiderate professor” uses the figure-of-speech, “throwing like a girl.” If a student chooses to see the comment as a joke, the course states this action shows a lack of intelligence and an understanding of “the offensive nature of the joke.”
On a question about a hypothetical situation where a “Bathroom Bill,” similar to HB2, would be implemented in the state, the only options for responses to this law are either to resist it or remain indifferent to it. No conservative options are provided.
Young Americans for Freedom chapter president Matt Phillips was one of the students who took the course.
“We had to take these tests and were confronted with different scenarios, and the responses [to the scenarios] were filled with a progressive, liberal agenda,” Phillips told Red Alert Politics, adding, “it was a lot of progressive agenda setting.”
The YAF chapter president also noted that the course attempted to eliminate all perspectives that did not adhere to the progressive agenda.
“The biggest thing that I took away was that they essentially tried to eliminate your convictions if you’re a conservative, but at the same time, promoted liberal convictions and progressive propaganda,” he said, concluding, “It took an approach to issues by essentially preaching moral relativism, but then establishing moral absolutes if it advanced the [progressive] agenda.”