One of my peeves is the use in public discourse of absurd logic. It’s made worse by confident, forceful presentation, as if that can cover it up.
Last night I watched Christopher Rufo, a “conservative activist,” on the PBS NewsHour. He is, as was described, a key actor in the Trump administration’s attack on major universities. No matter that he was corrected multiple times by Amna Navaz, he persistently wrenched and tortured both history and the intent of laws, never mind the concepts of academic freedom and free speech, to justify his/their agenda-driven attack. He cleverly used nonsense logic, making what he was saying sound legitimate. It wasn’t.
Some conservatives, including relatives of mine, have asserted for years that colleges and universities are liberal bastions, banning alternative viewpoints and failing to allow or hire speakers and faculty who do not adhere to what they perceive to be “liberal” ideas.
Let’s be clear. Opening up history to include what and who have been excluded is not a liberal idea. Literature that critiques assumptions, ideas, orthodoxy, and behavior is not “liberal.” Teaching that calls anything and everything into question is not “liberal.” Questioning beliefs that have few, perhaps no, facts supporting them is not “liberal.”
And if your daughter or son come home from college and announce that the indoctrination to which you subjected them is BS, no matter which side of the spectrum your BS came from, it means they’ve begun to think critically, possibly for the first time.
If your version of conservatism rejects fact-based and science-based information, the problem is not colleges and universities. The problem is you.
This brings us back to Mr. Rufo. His “side” of things, at least as expressed last night, is based on a series of glaring red herrings. The Red Herring fallacy brings irrelevant, though formidable-sounding, details to an argument, seemingly making its premise (if any) substantial. Most often, however, red herrings are used to obscure another fallacy: the fallacy of begging the question, a main characteristic of which is starting with a conclusion rather than a premise or premises, gathering information to support the conclusion, then using the conclusion itself as evidence. This is also known as circular reasoning. Pulling the curtains back from Mr. Rufo’s blather shines light on his actual starting point: universities are liberal and everyone know it.
The Project 2025 team – of which Mr. Rufo is a part – has a long-held series of agendas that are based in evangelical religion and far right-wing ideology. They’ve been looking for ways to impose their beliefs, no matter how wacky, on our country for decades. It does not matter to them if they use “reasons” for their actions that are purely matters of convenience, means to an end. In their circle, “the ends justify the means” is an article of faith.
A perfect example is their using “antisemitism” as their cudgel of choice against the Ivy League schools, long-time bêtes noires for them. These people have no interest in antisemitism as such. It’s merely a current tool. They no more care about antisemitism than they do about the actual reasons for poverty or the lingering effects of slavery.
Mr. Rufo, the “activist,” is a fraud, and a dangerous one. His hardened ideology armors him against the actual damage he will do if he’s allowed to do it. What he wants to impose is not remotely close to what mainstream Americans would consider responsible governance.
And keep that in mind: what Project 2025 is attempting is far from what mainstream America would want if the truth of it were known. This is why the “uprising” of ordinary people is so important: it holds the bright lights on the trolls in control of the federal government and makes them at least pause. Continuing to shine that light will ultimately make them stop.
It might even wake up the old, paralyzed Democrats in Congress.
Edmund J. McDevitt
©May 2025