What, he considers “Property is theft”? He advocates workers self-management to replace capitalism? He advocates the anti-state socialism of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin?

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/the-economics-of-anarchy

Oh, you probably mean propertarian, not libertarian. Libertarian was first used by the left in 1858. Right-wing appropriation of the term started over 100 years later—while we were still using it!

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian

So, please, use the term propertarian to describe these people—they are more into property than liberty so that name fits far better.

As a science major, Ms. X came to believe Y. As a literature major, Mr. Z came to believe A., etc., etc.

I see this as a faulty premise, blaming the degree or the school for the reaction of Mr. O’K. Next, you will cite Gandhi as worse than Hitler because of his (Gandhi’s) novel counter-proposal for decades of authortarian rule by an occupying force.

This indeed means that what gets called moral relativism is indeed a bad basis on which to argue for tolerance (if one can “argue for” basic values at all.) But that is not, to my knowledge, what motivates philosophers professing “moral relativism!” They just think it’s true, that’s all (excepting say people like Rorty, who are “relativists” much more generically.)

“Conservatives and traditionalists are in this respect very
fortunate in college. They are challenged. They learn material
through postmodernism, historical revisionism and the plight
of the disenfranchised. The are forced to disect morality and
examine the ethical obligations of the West. They are lectured
about the injustices and struggles of those who have been
victim of systems favorable to those in power. They are
drowned in relativism, concepts of distributive justice and
redistribution of wealth. They are taught that there is no such
thing as truth and you are not allowed to make judgments
upon anyone or anything, except America. They are taught to
be sensitive and defensive, emphasizing artifice and political
correctness over fact. For Rutgers students who have not
taken any classes in the liberal arts, look no
further than your mandatory Expository
Writing course. You read about the evils of
capitalism and the gluttony of America. You
read about the corruption of the elections
processes which elect diplomatic morons.
You learned about the consequences of globalization, the need
for cultural contexts and the corruption of an all men’s
institution discriminating against women. Liberals are very
unfortunate in college. They aren’t really challenged at all.”

(1) Recall that a lot of college movement conservatives are influenced by Ayn Rand, who rather astonishingly thought that Kant was a subjectivist and relativist about morals.

(2) About kid bitzer’s point:

“given that this is exactly the kind of thing that douthat said about harvard in order to make his conservative bones”
—this has a long pedigree. I recall watching Bill Bennett give a presentation at Harvard, back in the 80s, in which he claimed that Harvard didn’t believe in teaching ethics. Harvard at that time had not just the philosophy department, a whole slew of ethics courses in the various professional schools, etc., but required all its undergraduates to take a moral reasoning course as a condition of graduation. My Dad pointed this out, whereupon Bennett said: “By “teaching ethics” I don’t mean some dry academic course; I mean getting the drugs off campus”.

Ah. Right. I see.—It put me in mind of Lewis Carroll:

“”There’s glory for you!”

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’ ” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.”

The Alex @37 – Your a priori judgments are showing. It is possible to say that slavery, etc etc. but it is also possible to say that colourless green ideas sleep furiously. So what? Your exciting calculus of relative blame may help get you through the day, but I fail to see what it has to do with either a philosophical or an historical understanding of the structures you hate so virulently.

I’m not sure I follow. I was trying (and maybe I failed) to explain that saying “culture” is relevant means that you can’t say apartheid was “wrong” is a false dichotomy. You can say that it’s wrong, but it does make it harder to “judge” individuals.

The Alex @37 – Your a priori judgments are showing. It is possible to say that slavery, etc etc. but it is also possible to say that colourless green ideas sleep furiously. So what? Your exciting calculus of relative blame may help get you through the day, but I fail to see what it has to do with either a philosophical or an historical understanding of the structures you hate so virulently.

Martin @30, kid @38: That’s more or less what I was trying to say.

Actually, maybe ‘something they know to be false’ is too strong. It may simply be ‘bullshit’ (in the technical sense of the term, of course).

I think that’s a big part of it, along with the self-willed ignorance of the selectivity necessary to construct a single view of “tradition” which would support such a simplistic claim.