Universities, Judicial Overreach, and the Search for Truth

On Friday, December 8, 2023, Kim Monson’s pre-recorded broadcast brought together two powerful discussions: constitutional scholar Rob Natelson on the poison spreading through American universities and the troubling pattern of judicial overreach in state courts, followed by Christian philosopher Doug Groothuis examining the essential differences between world religions and the nature of truth itself. The University Crisis and Federal Corruption Start listening at 2:29 – Hour 1 Rob Natelson, a constitutional expert who spent 31 years in academia, pulls back the curtain on what he calls a deeply embedded “virus” in American higher education. The recent explosion of anti-Semitism and support for terrorist organizations on college campuses, he argues, reflects decades of ideological poisoning that began long before the diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda took hold. Natelson traces much of the corruption to federal money. Student loan programs have encouraged people to attend college who shouldn’t, allowing universities to jack up tuition and add unnecessary staff, particularly in DEI roles that push the institution further leftward. Federal research grants corrupt science by funding orthodoxy while suppressing dissent. His prescription is radical but straightforward: terminate all federal programs involving higher education. The discussion turns to governance failures. Faculty members today often bear little resemblance to legendary professors of the past, and tenure has become partly a political reward rather than protection for genuine intellectual freedom. When young, hormone-charged students are concentrated in one place under the supervision of adults untrained in psychology and often resentful of the outside world, everything can and does go wrong. “Obviously, that’s got nothing to do with racial justice or social justice. It has to do with tearing down Western civilization, and it has to do with hate. And unfortunately, that virus is very, very deeply embedded in our university systems.” Rob Natelson, Constitutional Scholar and Author When Courts Veto the People Start listening at 33:36 – Hour 1 Rob Natelson shifts focus to a troubling pattern in state judiciaries, particularly the Montana Supreme Court. Unlike the Colorado Supreme Court, which generally stays within the mainstream despite its liberal tendencies, Montana’s high court has effectively granted itself veto power over constitutional amendments the people choose to pass. Conservative amendments get struck down while liberal ones pass, with rationales switching to achieve desired outcomes. This judicial overreach threatens the primary check citizens have on runaway courts: the ability to amend their constitution. Natelson, commissioned by the Frontier Institute to analyze Montana’s court, explains that nonpartisan judicial elections don’t make the process apolitical. They simply hide the politics, preventing information from reaching voters while allowing organized interests like the plaintiff’s bar to effectively buy court seats. Colorado’s retention election system fares poorly in Natelson’s assessment. Judges get retained regardless of their records because voters receive no meaningful information. Partisan elections, with appropriate safeguards, historically built fine judiciaries in states like New York. The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court term offers hope: the Chevron doctrine may fall, leveling the playing field between citizens and administrative agencies, and an important tax case could limit government’s ability to tax unrealized gains. Truth, Worldviews, and the Claims of Christianity