Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

In light of discovering how the NBCC has chosen to use its Code of Ethics as a lever to restrict what college a counselor can graduate from if they want to work across state lines, I thought it would be fun to see what other new uses we could find for a professional Code of Ethics!

Gone are the days when a Code of Ethics was about delinating ethical behavior. Now we too can reshape the world ethically, to be whatever we want it to be!

Coming soon to a profession near you:

The Code of Ethics for the Thoroughly Confused Professional!™

Preamble

In order to create a clear chain of plausable deniability, we the remaining group members and signatories, after running off the traitors with pitchforks and blow torches, do hereby adopt this Code of Ethics to satisfy all future questions of non-accountability and ideological purity! Because there can’t be too many gateways to keep the unwashed riff raff out, however we are defining that today.

This code applies to all professionals, educators, lawmakers and nearby innocent bystanders as we see fit. And we are only acknowledging conflicts of interest that make the other guys look bad.

Purpose of the Thoroughly Confused Professional Code of Ethics

1. Control the message with that sweet sweet ideology!

2. Eliminate Accountability, I swear it was that other guy!

3. Gatekeep

4. Obscure Our Agenda Until Resistance Would be Futile. There is no war in Ba Sing Se…

Ethical Principles

These core values, arranged in no particular order of importance, are intended to set forth the ideals to which all vetted licensed professionals with proper ID and fully approved credentials with post-nomial letters should aspire. We center our professional lives in these principles:

• It’s our way or the highway!

• We value the correct perspectives

• Like all good families, there are some things we don’t mention

• Accountability begins and ends with self-reflection

• Good Intentions are all that matters

• When in doubt follow the Code, Unless we say different, then follow us

• The ends justifies the means

Ethical Standards

These ethical standards are relevant to all professional activities where responsibility is best to be avoided, clarity might create a paper trail, and you relish watching your enemies burn!

§1. Transparency: Members shall be fully transparent at all times. Should members choose to interpret that as going unclothed the committee will allow it as long as the member can say they don’t enjoy it with a straight face, or can effectively make a case that any maniacal laughter is due to nerves. Any records to the contrary will be immediately expunged, and advanced interpretations of this standard have already been processed by the office of revisionism.

§2. The Dignity Provision: Every person shall be treated with unconditional dignity. The committee will define dignity. Should the committee choose to re-define dignity, all dignity may be unconditionally suspended pending a dignity review.

§3. Mandatory Authenticity: Members are required to bring their whole, authentic selves to all professional spaces. Features of approved authentic selves can be found on page 12 of the handbook. The handbook can be found in the bottom file of the cabinet under the tab labeled “Comrade.” No appeals can be made to expand the features of approved authentic selves.

§4. The Sincere Apology Clause: Upon causing harm, members must issue a sincere, non-defensive, un-coached apology within 48 hours. No apologies will be accepted. Following the apology all traitor members will be remanded to the Ministry of Public Security for re-education.

§5. Conflicts of Interest: Members must disclose all conflicts of interest. The member in question is solely responsible for deciding when something is a conflict of interest. All decisions are final.

§6. Confidentiality: All member communications are strictly confidential unless elements of the conversation are determined verboten by the committee. If confidential member communications are found to be verboten by the committee, the conversation will be publicly posted on our website and the traitor member will be required to provide a Sincere Apology. See above.

§7. Wellbeing: The organization is committed to member wellbeing. Members experiencing distress caused by the organization's wellbeing initiatives are encouraged to further utilize the wellbeing resources provided by the organization. Should the wellbeing resources be deemed insufficient, the member will be directed to a Mandatory Authenticity review.

§12. Accountability: Leadership is accountable to all members. Members are accountable to leadership. The committee responsible for accountability is accountable to itself and has been found, upon review, to be doing an excellent job with no conflicts of interest.

§9. The Living Document Provision This Code of Ethics is a living document and may be revised at any time to reflect evolving values. Prior versions of this Code, under which you may have been operating in good faith, are null and void. All new code is retroactively binding.

§10. The Final Clause: By existing within a professional space governed by this Code, you have agreed to its terms. Questions may be directed to the Ethics Hotline. Now unmonitored!

With this complete Code of Ethics professionals are now prepared for all the challenging demands of workplace climates, and trauma exposure you could shake a stick at.

Speaking of sticks, make sure to pick up your state issued pitchforks and blow torches as you exit the door.

Leave a comment

Share

Housekeeping

I have missed writing satire. I hope you have as much fun reading it as I did writing it. It has also been a good while since I did a little catching up on what is happening in the home front. For the first time since I moved to Tennessee, I’m planting for consumption!

I’ve gotten myself mixed up in the world of historical herbs and vegetables, and that has me starting some Lovage from seed. I’ve also planted purslane, cardoon, and scallions. I expect some Good King Henry seeds to arrive tomorrow and over the weekend I’ll get more dirt and plant them.

This is all container gardening so I’m limited in how crazy I can go, but I’ve tried to pair tall plants, like the Cardoon with short plants like purslane so I get the most out of my space. If I manage to be able to grow enough to add to a good stew, or graze a salad’s worth while I read on a weekend afternoon, I will count my efforts a success.

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Heterodox STEM, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Every day, prospective therapy clients scroll through listings on Psychology Today, Better Help, and individual therapists’ web pages across the internet, hoping to get a sense of whether or not they could trust the person that they are looking at to both help them manage their problems and be ethical.

A Code of Ethics is the kind of document used to establish core values and behavioral expectations, which will help clients have confidence that their practitioner will act with integrity.

But what happens when Codes of Ethics are used to create credentialing requirements under the guise of ethical directives?

Case in point, the National Board for Certified Counselors is a non-profit credentialing body that provides a national test counselors can take, which is supposed to show that said counselor is knowledgeable in all the things the national board is testing for. Yet a careful read of their standard turns up a very curious passage. Specifically this:

Counselors shall identify only earned educational degrees in counseling or another mental health discipline with regard to all counseling work, including publications. Identified degrees from programs in the United States must be from colleges and universities that were accredited at the time of graduation by one of the institutional accrediting organizations recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).

What Are Codes of Ethics For?

Professional codes of ethics are generally intended to serve as a foundational document that establishes the profession’s core values, ethical principles, and behavioral expectations, with the expectation that they can be used to guide decision-making. Ideally, this should build trust in the professions, mitigate legal risks, and create a shared image of good practice, fortifying consistent ethical conduct.

Most codes of ethics establish a baseline for ethical behavior in common situations seen in a profession, as an enforceable mechanism for situations where a practitioner isn’t reaching the baseline. The intent is to protect both the public and counselors.

Most of the NBCC’s code does a reasonable job of that, stipulating that ethical counselors protect confidentiality and obtain informed consent, while also stating that it would be unethical to have a physical relationship with a client or to exploit a client.

That is part of what makes the directive above stand out.

What Is the Curious Directive Doing?

The directive quoted above is different in that it is specifically calling for ideological purity through accreditation.

While the vast majority of parents and students think that accreditation is simply a certification of basic quality, that is not the case.

To break it down into simple terms, this is telling practitioners in the U.S. that to be considered ethical, they must have graduated from a university training program that was accredited by an accrediting body, which was recognized by the CHEA umbrella. Many folks don’t know that the only other umbrella is the U.S. Department of Education. So this bit of the NBCC Code of Ethics is specifically stipulating that the NBCC won’t accept graduates from programs only approved by the U.S. Government.

At the time the NBCC Code of Ethics was written, CHEA had adopted a DEI statement that included the following:

”Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) are rooted in the cultural identity and lexicon of a civil society. However, in 2020, these words became aggressively polarizing among groups in America. Along with polarization, Americans either became fearful of their neighbors, separated from those who were different or they moved to a new awakening that there is much work to be done to reaffirm that America is indeed one nation, with liberty and justice for all.

“We believe that the rich values of diversity, equity and inclusion are inextricably linked to quality assurance in higher education. Additionally, CHEA affirms that diversity, equity, and inclusion contribute to student success; and, that student success contributes to a better, healthier, and more enlightened, progressive society.”

This is the ideological environment the Code was built to route practitioners through.

For a profession like counseling, which was already deeply entrenched in this same ideology, this was exactly the briar patch they were looking for.

For the largest CHEA-recognized counseling accreditor, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), the NBCC’s Code of Ethics directive is exactly the kind of regulatory detail that both favors CACREP's ideological dogma and gives CACREP a perceived boost over its competitors.

The Corruption of Principles

At its heart, using a Code of Ethics to enforce things that are not ethical in nature, like mandating a preferred credentialing umbrella, affiliated institution, or bureaucratic pipeline, degrades the code’s authority. With a weakened authority, enforcing truly ethical breaches becomes a gamble as the moral weight of the document is diluted by insider handshakes.

If this directive is allowed to be included, what else will be allowed in? In this way, the document designed to prevent corruption becomes the vehicle for it, and a safeguarding tool is transformed into an instrument of coercion, and the less seriously anyone takes actual misconduct listed in its other directives.

What Can Be Done?

Practitioners specifically can speak out on these issues in professional conferences or incognito on podcasts if they fear reprisals.

Specifically, the public and practitioners alike should push to

• Strip non-behavioral directives from any Code of Ethics.

• Decouple ethics enforcement from which training program practitioners graduate from.

• State legislators should reconsider membership in a compact that mandates ideological purity through hidden interlocking regulations.

• Clients should educate themselves and choose their therapist very carefully.

People suffering from untreated mental illness, those depressed by the state of the world, or facing wrenching choices while trying to care for their families, deserve to know that practitioners are “ethical” because of how they behave and prioritize client care, not because their program’s accreditor ticked the right (or wrong) ideological box.

Leave a comment

Share

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Heterodox STEM, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

During the age of the mini-skirt and at the height of Beatlemania, a scientist revealed something shocking about human nature. All it took was a lab coat and a little phrase like, “The experiment requires that you continue,” to convince 65% of people to kill a perfect stranger. As desperately horrible as that is, what gets talked about much less is that 35% of people refused.

These people sat in the same chair, heard the same instructions, faced the same lab-coat-dressed authority, and they refused to flip the switch and deliver deadly voltage to someone right around the corner. It’s been sixty years since Milgram’s experiments horrified the world. It’s time we start asking a more helpful question: What was different about the people who said no?

The Answers Found in the Research

According to Milgram’s original work, fully explored in his book, Obedience to Authority, among the factors that helped people to resist were the absence of the authority figure, and when the proximity to the subject receiving the shocks was closer, subjects were more likely to refuse to give more painful shocks.

Individuals who saw confederates refuse authority were also much more likely to refuse to deliver painful shocks. Courage does indeed call to courage.

Alan Elms, who worked as a research assistant to Stanley Milgram, wrote in his 2009 article Obedience Lite, that to further study personality variables, he invited 40 of Milgram’s past test subjects to return several months after they had participated to take personality tests and go through extensive interviews.

Of the 20 who had disobeyed under the most challenging circumstances to refuse, he did not find any dramatic personality difference from an opposing group of the most obedient test subjects. The two groups didn’t differ significantly in personality scales or on standards that looked at those drawn to social dominance.

Where that changed was in scales that measured social responsibility. Subjects who had defied the authority scored high in that attribute. Likewise, those who were especially obedient tended to score much higher in authoritarian tendencies. Highly obedient participants were consistently more authoritarian.

Later researchers, like Jerry Burger, have also pointed to the measure of empathic concern as another factor that can brace a person to defy authority.

What makes these observations noteworthy is that the people who defied authority maintained a personal sense of responsibility. This group was reported to say things like, “I can’t go on with this: no, this isn’t right,” or “I can’t do that to a man.” Speaking for themselves, this group refused to let the structure of authority absorb their moral responsibility.

It’s important to note that this wasn’t an obvious expression of fearlessness. One of the subjects who refused to give the shocks even apologized, saying, “No, I can’t continue. I’m sorry.” Again, reiterating a sense of personal responsibility went on to say, “One of the things I think is very cowardly is to try and shove the responsibility onto someone else.”

The resisters didn’t have obviously stronger moral convictions than the compliant participants. What they did have was a stronger sense that their actions were their own.

Implications for Today

Our current moment is dominated by an institutional culture. We are asked to defer our own judgment to credentialing bodies, professional standards, frameworks built on consensus, or other institutional authorities, with precious few situations where people are expected to personally endorse their reasoning for making moral choices. This is a pathway toward compliance.

And you don’t have to look very hard to find evidence of that all around. Despite pushback, many professional programs still require students to affirm ideological commitments as part of regular course evaluations. Entire fields have been constructed to answer the question, “Why do we do things this way?” with, “Because the accreditor requires it.”

Whenever a system asks you to comply without argument, to affirm without questioning, to enforce against those who don’t endorse, it is running a Milgram experiment on you. The only question is, how do you respond?

Questions to Mull Over

The 35% that refused to shock strangers provide important clues about the conditions that allow for resistance. Environmental factors help, but in the worst possible situations, it’s moral agency that makes the difference. That isn’t a fixed trait. It is a capacity. Specifically, moral agency is something that can be cultivated or eroded depending on how we build the structures around ourselves.

If we wanted to create a world that produced more people capable of resisting toxic authority, we could.

Right now, especially in higher education, we’ve been building the opposite and selecting for compliance. And it is graduates from these institutions that will go on to lead the future across all sectors of our country.

The question right now shouldn’t be whether you would have been able to resist the urge to obey shocking a man to death; rather, it should be, are we creating a world where institutionally and personally that is still even possible?

Leave a comment

Share

Further Reading

Obedience to Authority: An Experiment View by Stanley Milgram

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Heterodox STEM, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Two months into 2026, and I'm only now sitting down to write about where this year is headed — the truth is, I've been procrastinating

Not without cause, mind you.

While I was driven to oppose an ideology that hurt me personally and that I could see harming clients and our culture, getting used to the idea of having a public persona was a challenge, and I’m still figuring out who that is.

Despite everything that has changed, I still think of myself mostly as mom, which has both pros and cons.

On the one hand, being a mom keeps me rooted in the reasons that drive me forward. I can’t be content knowing what I know and not trying to carve out a healthy channel for younger generations to follow.

At the same time, the stereotype of mothers doesn’t include high-tension policy meetings or poring through documents while analyzing the jargon-laced details. Mom's work is knowing the best way to get stains out of cotton or how to plan well enough that a roast, with potatoes and two sides, are all ready to eat at the same time. The juggling involved is a crossover skill, but most think of the other tasks as menial.

It doesn’t help that even today, mothers often take the blame when their adult children seek out therapy.

Now that I am seeing success in my work efforts, my role as mom is on the wane. Two of my crew have even moved away. While I think that this is for the best right now, my mixed feelings about that change are excruciating. Yet it is my concern for the world they are entering that propels me restlessly forward.

Writing about my plans for next year puts that new reality front and center.

Now that I’ve copped to my dawdling, the struggle is to fully embrace speaking out on policy on a bigger stage, while finding new connections with others to share my time.

So what lies ahead this year? The fight for accreditation reform in Tennessee looks like it will take another year. I’ll follow up on those details in a future post.

But the national fight is on. I’ve delivered comments to the specific branch of the U.S. Department of Education that is rewriting the Accreditation handbook for national approval.

I’ve reached people at Heterodox Academy and Defending Education who will both help me refine my understanding of the policy problems we are facing and may work with me to create change.

I’ve also met so many therapists in training and practice who are suffering under the weight of trying to help clients while navigating an ideology that would see their offices turned into indoctrination pressure cookers.

I have more thinking I need to do, to narrow down some specific plans of action, but I have officially taken the hardest step. I’m not procrastinating anymore.

And so we begin.

Leave a comment

Share

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Editorial Note: This essay is the third of three in which I uncover the failings of contemporary social work education. All three are dedicated to my brother–and to all who refuse to let their group identity speak for them. Part 1, Part 2.

Two months after graduating from an intellectually hollowed-out social work program in May 2025, I stumbled upon sociologist Frank Furedi’s book, Why Borders Matter: Why Humanity Must Relearn the Art of Drawing Boundaries. While the whole book is well worth a read, Chapters 2 & 3 offer a window into what has gone so badly awry both within my program and across contemporary social work education.

Traditionally, as mental health practitioners, social workers are charged with upholding realistic, professional boundaries to keep client-worker roles in place and prevent lapses in ethics. Indeed, the word “boundary” is mentioned 12 times in the profession’s Code of Ethics; however, beneath the surface of training happening in the classroom, two developments have turned U.S. social work education’s relationship with “boundaries” upside-down.

Reordering #1

The first development sounds nice in theory. Under new guidelines in the discipline’s 2022 Education Policy and Practice Standards (EPAS), social work educators have received a green light to dissolve the importance of boundaries in the name of social “allness” and what is collectively known as ADEI, i.e. Anti-racism (all “races” are accepted), Anti-oppression (all power differences are equalized), Diversity (all social differences are accepted), Equity (all outcome disparities are equalized), and Inclusion (all individuals are accepted).

Furedi’s insight is helpful here. He points out a broader social expectation that has developed in the West starting in the 1960s, one that he calls “radical openness”. Decade after decade, this expectation has increasingly rendered social boundaries frivolous and untrustworthy, as he describes:

“Openness has become the medium through which the contemporary sensibility of boundarylessness has come to influence people’s imagination. In recent years, it has become radicalised to the point where the very act of closing evokes suspicion.”

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), social work’s national accrediting body and producer of the 2022 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), imparts this radical openness from the top down across its 900+ educational programs, most frankly stated in its 2024-2025 Annual Report: “Social work is for everyone. No exceptions.” The same goes for the CSWE’s promotion of social differences–or diversity–that social workers must be open to, regardless of limits, constraints, or consequences (though note the already over-abstracted concept political ideology, not political beliefs or political values):

“The presence of differences that may include age, caste, class, color, culture, disability and ability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, generational status, immigration status, legal status, marital status, political ideology, race, nationality, religion and spirituality, sex, sexual orientation, and tribal sovereign status.”

A seductive-sounding corollary to this first development–i.e., social work’s advocacy for radical openness–is what Furedi calls “non-judgmentalism,” or an absolute refusal to draw boundaries around social differences in the name of inclusion and compassion. For example, within the CSWE’s Interpretation Guide, a document that programs use to understand and apply the 2022 EPAS, the value of “inclusion” becomes completely non-judgmental, only “achieved when all people are welcomed to fully participate.”

Social work education’s broader “professional” attitude has also come to reflect the current non-judgmental ethos of university life. Furedi puts his finger on a general disposition where

“In higher education, ambivalence, hybridity, fluidity, and transgression are favourably contrasted to boundedness….This sentiment, conveyed through the lauding of ‘non-judgementalism,’ has a commanding influence on regard for the symbolic boundaries that frame everyday life. In contemporary culture, judgemental behaviour is defined in entirely negative terms.”

He continues, briefly explaining the current mood:

“As far back as 1948, the liberal literary critic, Lionel Trilling, wrote of a ‘characteristically’ American impulse not to judge people too harshly, noting the assumption that the consequences of judgement ‘will turn out to be “undemocratic”’. In the present context, where there is a widespread reluctance to draw moral boundaries, a non-judgemental orientation towards life has become the defining feature of the prevailing cultural sensibility.”

Reordering #2

Here, it turns out, is the second, contradictory development: social work seems to refrain from drawing moral boundaries due to its radical openness and non-judgement, but in fact has hardened boundaries around what it deems as its “core ideology”. To a new student, this looks like professors who talk about being as inclusive and understanding as possible, but in actuality draw a tightly conscripted set of boundaries based in coercive egalitarianism, radical democracy, critical social justice, utopian politics, and radical social engineering.

This twist constitutes a fifth bait-and-switch, on top of the four I identified last week that educators use to keep students hooked and philosophically captured:

Bait #5: Justify the superiority of social work with the language of unconditional “openness” and “non-judgment”.

Switch #5: Close off any pretense of competing views to students and escalate judgment of dissenters into the moral realm. Monopolize the acceptable use of openness and professional judgment through “progressive” premises.

This bait-and-switch has entrenched five educational–soon-to-be professional–hypocrisies, effectively “leaving [students] unprepared to respond to the complexities of practice and failing thousands of clients across the country in the process,” as I argued last year:

• Undiverse “Diversity”: Social diversity is what counts; intellectual and political diversity–including the need for evidence and humility–does not.

• Exclusive “Inclusion”: Inclusion is extended to “all people,” except those who question the reality, possibility, or value of inclusion itself.

• Inequitable “Equity”: Equity in resources and status is what counts; equity in values, political opinions, and arguments around social change (including starting premises, means, rates of change, and final ends) do not.

• Racist “Anti-Racism”: Anti-racism is extended to all races, except “White” people.

• Oppressive “Anti-Oppression”: Anti-oppression–i.e. radical equality–for social groups is what counts; anti-oppression for individual ideas, values, choices, freedoms, and visions of the Good Life does not.

Holding onto Intellectual Pluralism

I almost became hooked myself in my Master’s of Social Work (MSW) program at Colorado State University (CSU), mistakenly trusting that professors would allow students to honestly grapple with ideas and come to their own conclusions. (My colleague Arnoldo Cantú, drawing on a book by linguist Amanda Montell, calls this sheer lack of intellectual honesty “cultish.”).

My saving grace came from cross-checking my education with people close to me over the three years, plus the set of theoretically diverse International Studies classes I took during undergrad, which included a fascinating and rigorous Ethical Foundations of Global Economic Policy class (approximate syllabi here).

By Spring 2024, I looked for some way to step outside of the program’s psychologically closed bubble and pursued an independent study on the U.S. census and race. In April, while contending with the degree to which social work conveyed a deceptive, false pretense of “openness,” I sent the following email to my MSW cohort. (Email addresses are removed to preserve confidentiality. The email title was intentionally provocative to pique interest, harkening back to Harry Frankfurt’s book On Bullshit. As I explained, “In the spirit of intellectual openness, I will be presenting a spectrum of sources (some controversial) and will let you make up your mind on their truth quality.”).

Even so, there was a limit to the degree of sincere intellectual pluralism and realism that one could petition for in the program, knowing that professors stuck to their nationally-backed “progressive” scripts without presenting counter-arguments. In fact, CSU includes “transparency, openness, and inclusivity” as part of its core values–despite the fact that one faculty member’s racialized, shame-inducing teaching methods are anything but.

There is more to the story. However, for now, after having my own openness questioned by a School of Social Work employee in October last year, reading Why Borders Matter has been undeniably clarifying and shed light on the fundamental importance of boundaries grounded in professional humanism, rather than deceptive emotional appeals and vague words.

Moreover, in the process of writing this essay series, I’ve come to realize that educational boundaries associated with reason, rigor, and excellence will continue to eternally be worth defending, even if 2020s social work education–in the name of “openness”–refuses to believe in all three.

Nathan Gallo, MSW, CNA, is a recent Master of Social Work graduate and hospital nursing assistant based in northern Colorado. He has written about the importance of cognitive liberty, tolerance, and value pluralism in social work education. Gallo also led a case study article on medical aid in dying (MAID) and motor neuron disease, published in the flagship journal for this practice, the Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine.

Leave a comment

Share

Further Reading

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Editorial Note: This essay is the second of three in which I uncover the failings of contemporary social work education. All three are dedicated to my brother–and to all who refuse to let their group identity speak for them. Part 1, Part 3.

Social work education has been featured in the news this Winter, and not in a positive light. First, an exposé came out about sex- and race-based discrimination under the banner of “anti-racism”. Then came a specious defense of a suspended social work professor that lectured on the “pyramid of White supremacy,” ignoring the hyper-politicized “progressive” origin of the pyramid itself. Finally, a damning report was released in December about social work’s compelled use of “anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion” in the classroom.

All of these are part and parcel of social work education’s national pivot towards an intolerant, socially regressive ideology operating in the name of faculty-backed “progressivism.” Last week, I published two students’ experiences in their Masters of Social Work (MSW) programs paying to “learn” about this progressive ideology, all at the cost of adequate professional preparation.

This week, I draw on my own MSW experience at Colorado State University (CSU) to show how students of any political persuasion can get hooked by social work’s seemingly innocuous language of “compassion,” only to find themselves thrown into an ideologically sealed world with little ability to push back or fruitfully disagree.

Normally, an essay like this would include student perspectives from other universities, but public criticism of social work programs by students is virtually non-existent. What’s more, after the “Whitelash” story broke in October in Minding the Campus, the overwhelming majority of my 30-person program cohort at CSU distanced themselves from me in the weeks following. Those that stay in touch do so under the desire for anonymity, which I wholeheartedly respect.

In my case, social work was my first and only choice in Fall 2022 for going back to get a Master’s degree. I had heard positive things about the profession’s versatility from friends and co-workers, anchored in identifying ways that a person’s environment could contribute to their life difficulties. My choice had been solidified after learning about the beauty of hospice social work as I cared for those with dementia. I was there to learn and to help.

“From the very start, I was hooked on the field’s person-in-environment (PIE) framework,” I wrote about my experience. “And I was ready to set aside the tainted impressions of social work from the media and from grandiose BSW students I met from undergrad.”

On the first day of class, after going over the syllabi, we talked about social work’s checkered history of splitting people into “deserving” and “undeserving”. (Links to syllabi for two required classes can be found here and here. The ideological slant was glaringly obvious from the beginning, mirroring a recent study on slanted syllabi and “closed classrooms”). Having learned about historical social divisions within American society, this made sense. Professors implied that social workers were compassionate, accepting, and advocate for all people—no matter what. Most of the students in my cohort—myself included—seemed to hold a moral intuition that something ought to be done to reduce the sum total of suffering in American society.

Educators’ Hidden Agenda

It turned out that this was the first of three “bait-and-switch” strategies that social work professors undertook during the first semester—completely kosher by the program’s national accrediting body, as my colleague Arnoldo Cantú and I found out, after the release of the discipline’s 2022 Education Policy and Practice Standards (EPAS):

Bait #1: Draw students and the public in with the language of compassion and understanding on behalf of all people.

Switch #1: Dictate to both groups that the primary role of the social worker is group-obsessed activism, liberation, and anti-oppressive practice (the latter being a code word for the openly post-Marxist and socialist concept, ‘radical democracy’.)

Bait #2: Appeal to students and the public by speaking to universal experiences of pain and suffering.

Switch #2: Dictate to both groups that individualism, racism, heterosexism, colonialism, capitalism, White people (etc.) are the only credible causes of human suffering.

Bait #3: Draw students and the public in with language of fairness, equality, and social justice.

Switch #3: Delegitimize the possibility of realistic fairness and individual equality. Dictate to both groups that critical social justice—with embedded critical race theory—is the only correct form of thinking. Ignore or directly undermine liberal, conservative, capability, or religious forms of social justice.

To be sure, if one zooms out with a Big history and world history lens, any society and country on Earth—including the United States—can be cruel, filled with historical slavery, violence, and war. Contemporary conflicts abound. Individual pain, no matter who one is, can be overwhelming, hence ongoing ethical debates about the reasonability of suicide. Suffering can seem universally never-ending.

Yet, likely because of social work’s strong psychological focus, none of this historical nuance and realism about the human condition was discussed, much less an honest take about the sociopolitical complexity of American ideas around suffering, compassion, fairness, equality, and competing forms of justice.

The bait appeared to hook most students in. Problems in American society had “progressive” causes that led to “progressive” solutions. Moderate, conservative, or libertarian views were written off, vilified, or silenced through subtly enforced classroom norms that insisted, “This is not what real social workers believe.” According to the class syllabus mentioned above on “Anti-Oppressive Social Work Practice,” it was up to social workers to “combat stereotypes, myths and discriminatory attitude[s], and injustice.” Political diversity—outside of the accepted intolerant and illiberal far-left “progressive” viewpoints—became one of the primary targets that, in professors’ eyes, we as new social workers should work to combat. Anything remotely related to the “status quo” was intolerable. (This, despite the fact that progressive activism constitutes a minority viewpoint across the United States compared to the “exhausted majority.”)

The Road to Graduation

I split the difference, justifying the enormous cost of classes by searching for measly morsels of truth and wisdom that could be carried forward into practice (this was supposed to be preparation to be a professional, after all). Questions about the holes in our education constantly tugged at my conscience. What happens when social work’s governmental money tree withers? What about people who have been viewed as taking advantage of the system, without bearing any of the costs? Where was the realistic conversation about ethics and decision-making? About scene safety, especially when we have no choice but to work with people who are uncontrollably violent? About the economic growth and innovation that water the profession’s money tree? What about “minorities” that reject social work’s accusatory, group-identity narrative? Does social work have any meaningful response to the exclusionary hierarchies of global order, ones that have been there cyclically for centuries?

(Crickets. The typical answer we heard was that we “don’t have time” or that these questions would be “discussed in field,” i.e. our internship).

Barry Latzer, I later learned, raised the same points back in 2007:

A social worker who is largely ignorant of American history faces an intellectually blinkered professional life in which there will be strong temptation to respond to problems according to the stereotypes and shibboleths of the moment. A social worker who is largely ignorant of political theory is unarmed against the appeals of demagogues who offer simplistic and sometimes unconstitutional remedies to complex problems. A social worker with no grounding in philosophy likewise is ill equipped to tell the difference between cogent reasoning and ideology, which superficially can look alike. A social worker not conversant with economics will be in a poor position to evaluate different approaches to the alleviation of poverty.

I had also split the difference before I even started school, experimenting with social work’s compassion- and group-centered language (italicized below) in an end-of-life research lab biography. After realizing the degree to which this signaled group-based identity politics and progressive “luxury beliefs,” I now consider this way of thinking to be a big mistake:

Nathan’s interest in the end-of-life journey comes from his previous work as a caregiver for people with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. In particular, he is focused on issues surrounding financial access, choice, and agency during the end-of-life process. He is also passionate about holding space for stories across the LGBTQ+, Latinx, and mental health communities. In addition to his role as a Graduate Research Assistant, Nathan is a Certified Nurse’s Aide (CNA) – Behavioral Health Technician (BHT) for UCHealth in Northern Colorado.

Fast forward three years later.

The summer after graduation and revealing myself as the pseudonymous author of “Out of Balance,” a School of Social Work employee directly questioned my values as a new social worker and whether, in their words, “I cared about meeting the individual where they are at.” (This, despite the person knowing I worked through school as a hospital nursing assistant and interned as a hospice social worker. Both are jobs that explicitly demand meeting individuals physically, emotionally and spiritually “where they are at.”)

Speaking Out

It turns out this was a fourth bait-and-switch, the same thing befalling a PhD student in the same program.

Bait #4: Appeal to the discipline’s care-oriented “values” to justify the credibility of the profession.

Switch #4: Dictate to new and seasoned professionals that values steeped in critical social justice take priority over the other five values in our profession’s Code of Ethics. Demand that “dismantling White supremacy” and “decolonizing social work” constitute the only way forward.

This incident led me to reveal my identity publicly and send the following email in October 2025 to the School of Social Work’s faculty and staff (email addresses are removed to preserve confidentiality). I wrote with impassioned enthusiasm after realizing the extent to which our cohort had fallen for the stack of bait-and-switches, missing out on a quality professional education that took an honest account of the full range of sociopolitical ideas. The email was titled A Call for Educational Self-Reflection and remains unanswered to this day:

Social work can hardly be the only educational discipline that is overdue for correction. Higher education itself is in desperate need of heterodox students to write about their experiences, creating a record trail that can help spur reform—especially in disciplines tied to formal professions. As the work that Suzannah has done on this Substack illustrates, it will take students from all of the helping professions—counseling, psychology, psychiatry, marriage and family therapy, psychiatric nursing—to expose and dress down this ideologically rigid set of bait-and-switches. After all–teaching by professionalism, not ideological conformity, is the most humane way forward.

Continue to Part 3.

Nathan Gallo, MSW, CNA is a recent Master of Social Work graduate and hospital nursing assistant based in Northern Colorado. He has written about the importance of cognitive liberty, tolerance and value pluralism in social work education. Gallo also led a case study article on medical aid in dying (MAID) and motor neuron disease, published in the flagship journal for this practice, The Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine.

Leave a comment

Share

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I (Suzannah Alexander) returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Subscribe now

Editorial Note: This essay is the first of three in which I uncover the failings of contemporary social work education. All three essays are dedicated to my brother–and to all who refuse to let their group identity speak for them. Part 2, Part 3

It’s been 15 years since four professors wrote their hard-hitting critique about the poor quality of social work education, titled A Dream Deferred: How Social Work Education Lost Its Way and What Can Be Done. Then, confirming their strongest suspicions, another professor published a withering report in 2023, aptly named “The Dystopian World of Social Work Education.”

Beyond the public’s awareness, cracks in the foundation ostensibly laid to prepare the country’s largest mental health profession only continue to grow.

Last March, The Journal of Teaching in Social Work revealed just how deep these latest fault lines go, releasing a Special Issue about ideological capture throughout national social work education. There, to speak from a student perspective, I published an article about my experience with far-left, “progressive” ideology in a Master’s of Social Work (MSW) program at Colorado State University, titled “Out of Balance: Moving Beyond Anti-Racist & Anti-Oppressive Education.” Dismayingly, I felt compelled to publish the piece under a pseudonym to protect the standing of my degree before graduation in May 2025, but I have since revealed myself publicly as the author, “Jordan the Social Worker”.

I was not alone. Here, with permission, I share two other students’ testimonials about experiences in their respective MSW programs, ending with my own to add color to “Out of Balance”. All identifying information has been removed to preserve students’ confidentiality; however, both students were enrolled in an MSW program between 2022 and 2025.

Both are humbly thanked for their eloquence and courage. Suzannah, I also offer a golden thank you for the space to publish their stories.

MSW Student #1:

The true honesty of social work is that no one, at least anyone I know, woke up as a child to dream of becoming a social worker. This is a job that most likely finds the person and not the other way around. I have so much respect, compassion, and empathy for people and communities that educators in the program would describe as oppressed. It was interesting because with my background and who I am as a person and my life experiences, I would be described as an “oppressed person,” yet I never really saw myself as this. I saw myself as someone fighting to make life better for myself and my children while getting the opportunity to enter the world of social work.

I saw this as an opportunity to help uplift and support those who didn’t yet see in themselves the strength to accept better in their lives. But I felt wrong as I immersed myself in a program that seemed to have a higher understanding of oppression and how each of us should view this in each other. The program almost broke me as someone who was screaming inside to say this is not how people at their lowest view themselves. That is where the program lacks authenticity. I struggled most interacting with other classmates who questioned themselves and either took the word “oppression” to a level that left no opening for other interpretations or the opposite: creating this guilt for being white. Someone commented literally in class, “I hate that I am white.” What good does this do to help social workers stay as open and unbiased as possible?

As someone who can culturally and racially identify in either direction, I appreciate that there continues to be racism within our society. However, I disagree with the school’s intentions that feed into a perspective that says, “This is a poor, underrepresented person.” By their standards, I should be sitting here and blaming someone for everything wrong that has happened, but the school forgets that it’s possible for people to move forward in their lives. We need to move away from this way of thinking and empower the person as an individual as they show up, versus what the program teaches, which is to feel sorry for experiences that professors consider as “oppression.” What good does that do for anyone, for either the social worker or the person and the family that they are supporting?

MSW Student #2:

Social work education seems determined to pursue an uncompromising crusade of social justice with JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion) as its north star. Looking back at my MSW experience, there was a fundamental dissonance between what we were taught (i.e. to question and challenge all hierarchical structures at all times) and the setting in which we were taught (a massively hierarchical public university). For example, universities do not assume equality of outcomes. Students are assigned different grades based on the quality of their work as assessed by their professors. Social work’s current paradigm of uncompromising activism in pursuit of equity is fundamentally at odds with the mission of a university. Modern universities, in my view, exist to discover and disseminate knowledge in a society. This mission requires rigor, discipline, and merit-based advancement.

Throughout my two-year MSW program, I felt like students and professors believed that any discrepancy in outcomes between students was the result of systemic oppression as opposed to their hard work or genuine differences in academic abilities. Grades were often inflated. Poorly constructed arguments frequently went uninterrogated. Questioning by professors was interpreted as “aggressive” or “attacking” by students. At the same time, faculty seemed emotionally brittle, reactive, and were often unable to hold boundaries for fear of upsetting the students. Standards seemed lowered for the sake of avoiding accusations of “oppression” or “discrimination.” Throughout all of this, I found myself wondering: if a student can’t handle a grad-school-level course on Public Policy or group therapy skills, then maybe they shouldn’t be a social worker?

In my personal opinion, JEDI is great! However, if the field cares more about these values than the pursuit of truth and knowledge, then I believe it ought to leave the university to create its own institutions of learning. Otherwise, social work programs will continue to set up their students for failure through a bad-faith experience of cognitive dissonance, where they are taught to be radical activists at an institution in which radical activism is not allowed.

I also take issue with the fact that we never seriously interrogated the dominant progressive ideology of social work education in any of my MSW classes. In a university setting, there is nothing wrong with a professor assigning radical texts to read and discuss. I view it as a dereliction of duty, however, to not assign anything by anyone who holds differing views. We should be reading texts by defenders of capitalism if we’re going to be reading and valorizing texts by communists and socialists. We should read Thomas Sowell or John McWhorter if we’re going to read Angela Davis and Ibram X. Kendi. This is not about balance for balance’s sake; this is to make students aware of arguments and perspectives outside their own and sharpen their critical thinking skills.

More pointedly, I say that we don’t necessarily need to be reading any of these authors at all! Social work is a field designed to train people to work in helping professions. Less than half of my experience in the classroom was spent on material that I viewed as in any way useful to my job as a social worker. Rambling discussions about neoliberalism and 60-minute videos on white fragility really gave me nothing.

Critical Theory is one of many important theoretical perspectives to teach. However, to be clear, I wasn’t “triggered” or angered by this material. I just found much of it an unconvincing waste of time that took away from practical training. If schools of social work want to engage in heady conversations about epistemology, political economy, history, and ethics, they should take a leaf out of the school of philosophy and allow for more dispassionate and robust debate. Or, as I would recommend, they could pivot back to the topics that encompass the actual practice of social work.

In summary, the choice could perhaps be framed as this: social work could either conform to the structure and mission of the university by tightening academic standards and loosening its ideological paradigm, or it could leave the traditional university altogether and create a new system that prioritizes implementing JEDI values over the acquisition of truth and knowledge.

Without serious reflection and a shift away from watered-down standards of academic performance, I fear that the field of social work will continue to decline in stature as a profession and academic discipline. Without shifting away from an uncompromising progressive ideology, I fear the field of social work will continue to be like a dog chasing its own tail, endlessly running in circles in pursuit of a utopian JEDI world, something it can never catch.

MSW Student #3 (Author):

I could taste the political tripwires in the classroom.

For three years throughout my MSW program, these tripwires muzzled the possibility of honest conversation about the human condition, electrified by professors’ quips about the urgency of “de-centering Whiteness,” of learning to “decolonize social work”—all as they failed to teach my cohort of 30 students the actual practice and decision-making skills we would need to start our careers. It was as if professors virtually ignored that social work was a profession with legal and ethical responsibilities, not a money-wasting, sociological exercise in politically slanted “activism.”

From the first class in August 2022, I refused to swallow the program’s uncompromising views around racial justice, even as a “biracial” person: Was I supposed to walk into patients’ rooms as their hospital nursing assistant––a job I sought to pay my way throughout school––hold their hands as they are dying, and ask them about their experiences of oppression? Was I really supposed to let call lights from patients and families deemed “White supremacists”—solely by virtue of self-identifying as “White”—run on and on?

(Call lights ring in the hospital for a multitude of reasons, e.g. for assistance with checking a blood sugar, ambulating to the restroom, or alerting staff that one is in pain or can’t breathe.)

By the curriculum’s twisted logic, was I supposed to nudge the nurse and have them turn down the oxygen on sick “White” patients, only to add the difference to patients “of color”? Worst of all, were the nursing team and I supposed to try harder during CPR for patients suffering from cardiac arrest that social workers saw as “oppressed”?

Beyond the impracticalities, imagine my surprise as I later discovered how quick multiple faculty members were to cast stones of shame. After graduation in May 2025, I listened to an interview by a professor explaining their guilt-presuming view on “de-centering Whiteness”: “I think it’s just until you prove something is not racist, we need to assume it is”. Later, I came across a high-pitched report about my former school of social work’s “heterosexist and cissexist departmental climate,” prompting me to recall hearing about the same school’s mistreatment of a former PhD student because of his refusal to buy into the department’s “non-negotiable” values. Demoralized, he ultimately left the program.

Imagine my ultimate saddened surprise on July 9 when a faculty member and PhD student said the quiet part out loud in a now-withdrawn “research” paper about the cruel, shame-inducing aim of anti-racist pedagogy. The paper is now the source of an official complaint with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and subsequent investigation by The Chronicle of Higher Education–justifiable, in my view, as the teachers directed their racialized ire at unsuspecting bachelor-level students:

In line with Bonilla-Silva’s (2019) theory of racialized emotions, we reflected that student’s emotional responses to learning about racism and white supremacy varied according to their social location within the white supremacist racial hierarchy (p. 19).

As stated by Bonilla-Silva (2019), white people may “derive satisfaction and even pleasure in domination,” therefore they have an affective interest in perpetuating white supremacy (p. 21).

One student stated, “I don’t feel safe in this classroom. The judgment and rejection come from the teachers’ reactions rather than the students. This makes me shut down” (p. 23).

By pushing students to engage in uncomfortable reflexivity, we sought to provide students with the skills to identify their own complicity in the reproduction of whiteness within social work education (p. 27).

We viewed this type of social and emotional learning as a form of resocialization, in which both students and instructors challenged white norms of behavior and racialized power dynamics (p. 29).

It’s really interesting how this very bright, very intuitive person of color had assumed those things about me and my approach. But yet the white dudes in the class were attributing oppression and all kinds of nastiness to me. [Laughs] (p. 29).

To this day, I still mine my conscience for the reasons why 29 people and myself–plus untold numbers of BSW, MSW, and PhD students–chose to continue spending thousands of dollars in student loans, only to walk away with few practical skills, race-based shame, and an ideological muzzle.

Continue to Part 2

Nathan Gallo, MSW, CNA is a recent Master of Social Work graduate and hospital nursing assistant based in Northern Colorado. He has written about the importance of cognitive liberty, tolerance, and value pluralism in social work education. Gallo also led a case study article on medical aid in dying (MAID) and motor neuron disease, published in the flagship journal for this practice, the Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine.

Share

Leave a comment

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

A year ago, I laid out a plan of what I wanted to accomplish in 2025. Looking back on it now, I’m astonished that I managed to pull off as many things as I did. There are also several things still in the “wait and see" category, and a few failures. Where to begin?

As some of you may have noticed, I have taken a long break over the Christmas and New Year holiday. While a significant amount of that has been spent in some much-needed rest and recreation, I also spent a fair bit of that time completing some big projects for the National Association of Scholars.

In the weeks ahead, I’m looking forward to sharing more about those, specifically a searchable database of all the CACREP-required multicultural counseling textbooks used across the country, which was one of my big projects for 2025 and resulted in FAIR’s OCR complaint against CACREP.

For folks who just arrived, CACREP is the largest accreditor of mental health and school counseling programs in the country right now.

Missions Competed

The big one, finding a way to continue doing this work, has been achieved! For now, I will be able to keep my home, I’ll be able to make a few much-needed repairs, and I’ll be able to go out occasionally and start putting my social life back together.

The second big goal, to see some success with my reform efforts, it’s both completed and still in progress. I spearheaded the CACREP OCR complaint with all the data I collected, and I also helped orchestrate the OCR complaint against CSU for the Whitelash study. While I didn’t do the legal writing (not a lawyer), I’m proud of the role I played.

I also initiated legislation here in Tennessee to limit accreditor power. Unfortunately, that is still filed under, wait and see. Though Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson seemed receptive on the phone, I’m still waiting to hear back on a bill number. Right now, I’m tentatively hopeful, but time will tell. Here’s to hoping I’m not the girlfriend in the meme with the boyfriend staring at the new girl.

I also didn’t put those eggs only in that basket. My state Representative, Monty Fritz, is also working on something covering that angle. He’s also running for governor, so there may be some excitement in store for my state.

Looking Forward

This year, my current challenges are different. Most importantly, it is a huge relief to have some financial stability. Between the support of subscribers and my work at NAS, I will be able to continue for the foreseeable future. At the same time, that relief presents its own challenge.

For most of last year, I expected to finish 2025 and promptly apply at Starbucks, hoping I could make something work further down the road. That drove me to exceed my limitations and press onward when, objectively, I should have taken a break.

I don’t regret a bit of that.

At the same time, it did take a toll, and that toll must be paid. That’s why it has been a month since I last finished a post, though I have several that I started and just couldn’t bring myself to complete.

On my queue for 2026 is to do some things away from the political space, and even have a bit of fun here and there. There will be those overdue repairs I need to attend to. Projects and chores that were put on a shelf while I focused all my attention on writing and researching will need to be dusted off and revisited so I can decide whether to cut my losses and ditch the venture or carve out time to make sure things get done.

I’ve already done some of that over the holidays, organizing closets, and weeding out the things it's time to let go of, but there is quite a bit more still to do.

I have also started other projects, like revitalizing my wardrobe. Living the stay-at-home mom life, then the keyboard warrior, was all fine in pjs or sweatpants. But now I’m in a position where I’ll be speaking to people in power. I’ll be visiting groups and relating the findings of my research. Truth told, the sweatpants aren’t going to cut it.

So I’ve broken out my sewing machine, and I've been slowly using my rusty skills to make things that fit both my new position and my….uh…. mature shape.

I’m excited to see those come together.

I expect to be busy as the legislative season picks up, and for anyone watching any sort of news, 2026 has already started off with a bang. I’m thinking this year is going to be a handful and then some.

What does all that mean for this Substack? Whelp, first off, I have some guest writers who are generously lending their gifts and sharing their stories.

It’s also very likely posting may be a little more irregular some weeks, especially here at the start of the year. Alternatively, I may put up some short updates, with less investigative pieces, until I find a workable balance for everything I’m trying to accomplish right now. That said, I’m still committed to shining light on the stories currently overlooked by what they call the mainstream media.

I hope that you hang in there with me as I figure this out. We are living in interesting times, so the way I see it, we gotta help each other out.

For now, stand out of my sunlight, friends. We’ve got more shadows to chase.

Leave a comment

Share

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

The note above hit my email at least twice last week. Clearly, they think that I should be happy to have that burden discharged. And I am relieved to know that this debt will no longer be slowly metastasizing with interest, which, hallelujah, isn’t compounding. I’m grateful that at least the student loan system isn’t that predatory.

Yet given the circumstances, the real truth is that I find the event of my repayment more galling than a cause for celebration.

It’s a reminder that I wasted my time and money with interest, paying for “education” that tried hard to convince me to forsake my values and beliefs in favor of a racist ideology, with struggle sessions included under the guise of ‘support.’

The worst part is that I am not alone.

Just in the counseling field, there is Jennifer Keeton, Leslie Elliot Boyce, Lauren Holt, and many many others who have quietly walked away with money and time lost, haunting every step.

The uglier truth is that this is a widespread problem.

The general dropout rate at just under 40%, For part-time students, well over 50% walk out in their first year.

Whatever savings they poured into their experience are down the drain, and the yoke of any loans will throttle their futures like a car that can’t go past second gear.

The Exploding Price Tag of College: How We Got Here

It’s no secret that the cost of college tuition has exploded since the 1960s. While there are some recent indicators that the growth rate is slowing down, for students stuck with loans at an inflated price, the damage is already done.

Academics often blame cutbacks in state funding for public colleges as the central pressure driving up costs. Libertarian-leaning lawmakers point to administrative bloat and easy access to federal loans like the one I just paid off. Wherever you place the blame, it is a vicious cycle that is mathematically unsustainable all by itself.

The Bigger Mess: Ideology in Education

Counseling programs, meant to train neutral helpers, have been consumed by Critical Social Justice Ideology, as my studies into accreditation standards and the required textbooks can attest.

Cases like Keeton’s (facing expulsion, she was assigned re-education to remediate her Christian beliefs, which she refused), Leslie Boyce’s (she was pressured to leave Antioch University after refusing to sign a diversity statement), and my own are all testaments to just how vulnerable students are.

It’s a mercy I only made it through one semester.

People should know, there is no recourse to recover tuition. Universities are insulated from lawsuits by legal precedent that heavily favors faculty over students’ concerns. Lawsuits aimed at educational malpractice are dead on arrival, even when the curriculum is arguably illegal or teaches students methods that amount to malpractice.

Legally, there are many more protections for someone who buys a lemon car, then enters into an agreement to get an “education” even at a state university.

Buyer beware.

That goes for folks looking to employ “educated” professionals, too.

Wrapping It Up: Freedom, But at What Price?

Paying off those loans finally closed a painful chapter—proof that persistence pays, eventually. But prospective students should be aware, the system stacked the deck: High costs, easy loans, no exits without ruin, and programs that sometimes prioritize ideology over education.

My story’s a cautionary tale—our universities have been ideologically captured, and current government efforts have not led to any improvement in reducing DEI ideology. Just ask the head of my former department. For policymakers: Protect students with real accountability, not endless debt traps. Others shouldn’t have to choose between integrity and financial devastation. Here’s to hoping reforms make higher ed a better deal for everyone in the new year.

Leave a comment

Share

Further Reading

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

In just a handful of weeks, the new year will be upon us. And with it, the return of most state legislators, passing new laws and trying to solve problems.

Thus far, I don’t have word on legislation planned for Tennessee, so it remains to be seen if we will be able to make the necessary changes to protect our young people from accreditor overreach. What I do have are some tools that everyone can use to keep tabs on what’s happening in their state capitals and in DC.

So let’s pass out some party favors that will last all year long.

First up is some software.

FastDemocracy is a real-time legislative tracking platform that monitors all 50 state legislatures, Washington D.C., and the U.S. Congress. It aggregates bills, amendments, votes, sponsors, committee actions, and hearing schedules into searchable dashboards and customizable alerts, some of which it does for the low, low price of free.

For education policy stakeholders, it enables precise monitoring of issues such as school choice programs, teacher certification and tenure rules, curriculum standards, parental notification requirements, diversity-equity-inclusion policies, and school funding mechanisms.

While there is a paid service for which I haven’t found an exact cost, the free service will suit the needs of most, covering a home state and federal legislation on whatever cluster of topics they find of greatest interest. It also has an iPad app that can keep you updated while on the go.

For those on a tight budget, there is also LegiScan. It covers similar territory, but with fewer bells and whistles. While some may find its stripped-down web design a little early 2000s, it absolutely gets the job done, and it has low, stair-step tiers that allow users to grow their influence without breaking the bank.

X, formerly known as Twitter. Aside from giving you mid-career Prince flashbacks, X is a great place to track and sometimes talk with your elected officials in real time.

Many, if not all, lawmakers have an X profile, and they will interact with you, provided you are polite, concise, and on topic. I’ve had more than one follow me back after making a thoughtful comment on policy. While ChatGPT suggests that might be because I’m the most amazing person on the planet, I suspect it’s more likely that many politicians do want to know what their electorate is thinking. They are also so busy just trying to get things done, a concise comment that clarifies an issue is actually helpful.

Yes, with the midterms on the schedule for 2026, Ballotpedia will be a handy bookmark to check. What you might not know is that they also do analysis of public policy and they have maps tracking power by party in state government.

While we are looking at maps, Campus Reform has a legislation tracker that will tell you where your state stands with DEI. While it doesn’t necessarily tell you if the bills passed were good, or if there are remaining gaps in the law which need to be filled (there are) it does serve as a great starting place to learn what you have to deal with.

So as the new year approaches, gather your tools, charge your metaphorical batteries, and resolve to watch your statehouse the way a shepherd watches a storm line rolling over the hills. Not with panic—but with awareness, competence, and the knowledge that you will see trouble coming.

May your alerts fire at reasonable hours, may your lawmakers be more responsive than their staff emails suggest, and may this year find more of us awake at the wheel.

After all, the city is only as sound as the citizens who refuse to look away.

Leave a comment

Share

Further Reading

An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making by Thomas Birkland

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

We are on the eve of the state legislative season. Across the country, much ink will be spilled trying to recalibrate the law. And while the fights will draw eyeballs, few will read the documents that actually detail the changes being made.

This is so very unfortunate, I feel compelled to put my forearm over my brow and have a wee moment of faint.

Why?

Because it is in the details of policy that real power and prosperity are traded like slivers of the One Ring. The dusty documents are where the magic happens, and if enough of us don’t take the time to read them and develop the skills to understand them, we have no one to blame when our sand castles come crashing down but ourselves.

I. The Attention Recession

Oh, the brutal truth: almost nobody likes policy.
Not you, well maybe me, but not the guy who screams about politics on X every night. We like the story of politics, who’s up, who’s down, who owned whom, but the actual machinery?

Ninety-nine point nine nine percent of people would rather get a root canal than read a committee report.

This isn’t new. Tocqueville noticed it in 1835: Americans are joiners, marchers, and sermon-listeners, but ask them to sit through a zoning hearing, and they suddenly remember urgent lawn care. The difference now is scale. A 19th-century citizen could still grasp most of what government did in a single newspaper. Today, the Federal Register spits out near 100,000 pages a year. So Good luck to anyone trying to keep up with all that.

It doesn’t help that we have an attention recession more severe than anything the world has ever seen. Most people’s lives are filled with work, family, and friends. Smart phones make sure we’re never ever able to disconnect from juggling our status or updating yet another TPS report. We can plan a biking trip for Saturday morning, if we can wedge it in between kid’s soccer games and making sure grandpa gets to his diabetes doctor in the afternoon. Doom-scrolling fills the ever-shrinking spaces in between. Who has time to deeply read the details of that bill to license hair braiding or minnow pedicures?

And into that vacuum pours everyone who does have time: lobbyists, ideological staffers, and trade associations that have existed since Chester Arthur sitting on a billion dollar war chest. They are not evil cartoon villains, most of them; they are just the only ones who stayed for the second hour of the hearing, and have strong ideas about what they think is ‘right.’

When normal people finally notice government again, it’s usually because something has detonated, Social Security is broke, a bridge fell down, or an insurance company just denied their claim using a clause buried in a 1996 reconciliation rider. Then we rage, we meme, we demand heads. But the detonation was baked in fifteen years earlier in a subsection that changed three words, and folks weren’t watching.

II. The Tyranny of the Parenthetical Phrase

Here’s a real example that could keep Rip Van Winkle up at night: the Public Health Service Act, Section 319, the emergency-powers clause that gave HHS secretaries god-mode during Covid. Most people think the big expansions happened in 2020–21. No. The real expansion was a bit slipped into the 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations To Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act:

“…a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure

That ‘immunity from suit and liability’ and the open-ended definition of “covered countermeasures” turned out to be a blank check. Fifteen years later it was used to shield Pfizer from virtually all liability, on terms nobody had debated in public. Was it malicious? Probably not. Was it foreseen? Almost certainly not. Was it read by more than a dozen people before passage? I’d bet my house, no.

This is the pattern. Tiny drafting choices—definitions that are one adjective too broad, sunset clauses that mysteriously disappear in conference, jurisdiction triggers written like Rorschach tests—sit quietly until the right crisis hits. Then they cause meltdowns.

These aren’t conspiracy theories; they’re just Tuesday in Washington. And they keep working because the only people who read the text are the ones paid to insert the landmines.

III. The Jeffersonian Alarm Bell

Ah the dark side of self-governance. For our republic to function, a critical mass of citizens has to care about the process, not just the outcomes. Not because process is sexy (it isn’t), but because outcomes are downstream of process the way floods are downstream of neglected levees.

James Madison built the system assuming energetic civic attention would act as a constant counterweight to rampant manipulation or simple sloppy wording. He was explicit: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.”

We are deep in the third act now.

When attention collapses, the system doesn’t produce moderate compromise; it produces brittle overreach, followed by backlash, followed by more overreach. The lobbyists write the 942-page bill, the partisans jam it through on reconciliation, the other side vows total war, rinse, repeat. Each cycle leaves more tripwires in the code.

Thomas Jefferson thought the solution was periodic rebellion—“the tree of liberty” nourished by blood. While I’m not endorsing violence, he wasn’t entirely wrong about the underlying mechanism. Every so often, the contradictions become so absurd that people do pay attention again. They march, they primary incumbents, and burn the whole thing down in a fit of righteous fury. Then the new crowd writes its own 2,000-page bills, and the cycle restarts.

The tragedy is that it doesn’t have to be this way. If 5% of the electorate—just 5%—treated legislative text the way sports fans treat box scores, the professional influence peddlers would be cut off at the pass. A single viral thread dissecting a sneaky definition can now shift more votes than a hundred TV ads. We have tools Madison couldn’t dream of.

But we don’t use them, because policy is still boring until it’s catastrophic.

So here we are. The republic limps along on near 100,000-page autopilot, occasionally crashing into a mountain everybody saw coming except the pilot. And every few decades, the passengers storm the cockpit, which is cold comfort when you’re cramped in the economy section watching the ground rush up.

The honest question, no partisan spin, is whether this is a stable equilibrium or the long setup for something much worse. My fear is that we keep muddling through with bad policy until the contradictions just leave mud. At that point, Jefferson’s “refreshing” looks less like 1776 and more like 1861.

The alternative, the one nobody wants to talk about, is to build a culture that treats the fine print as a civic duty instead of a punch line. Not everyone, just enough to shift incentives. A few thousand policy nerds with large audiences, a few hundred journalists who read the actual bills, a few dozen members of Congress who know they’ll be primaried for sneaky drafting.

It’s not glamorous. It’s not even fun. But it beats waiting for the next explosion and pretending we’re surprised when the shrapnel has a 1996 copyright date.

The floor is open. Who wants to read the next 1,400-page continuing resolution with me? I’ll bring the coffee.

And of course, there is also the other secrety dangerous option everyone’s really really scared of.

Deregulation.

……..Is that crickets I’m hearing?

Leave a comment

Share

Further Reading

Money and Good Intentions Are Not Enough by John E. Brandl

Taxing Ourselves by Joel Slemrod

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.

• Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog,

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

As recently as 2022, The Epic of Gilgamesh was scrubbed from Columbia University’s famous Core Curriculum in favor of identity-focused titles like Commons by Myung Mi Kim. While Columbia may finally be backpedaling on its DEI-focused literature selections under pressure from the Trump Administration, the free fall in humanities enrollment across the country may not be as easily corrected. Fears abound that the humanities are dead.

But maybe that’s going to be just fine.

Liberal arts haven’t died; they have escaped the ivory tower. A quick scan across the internet suggests that interest has never been higher—the students just aren’t showing up for indoctrinating curriculum, high tuition, and questionable return on investment.

Now moving into its third decade, the World Wide Web has democratized cultural commentary. Both new outlets and voices are rising to quench the intellectual thirst, with few to no gatekeepers required.

Today, we are going to explore the cultural incubators from around the digital landscape for these new Wild Humanities.

YouTube

In addition to being the second largest search engine on the internet, YouTube is becoming the central commons for cultural critique. The rise of the influencer is well known, but it may be less obvious that subjects like literature, philosophy, history, opera, and more are being covered, and I dare say, owned, as the following video explains:

Adam Walker, whose video is linked above, expounds on how English Departments have divorced their subject matter, with students graduating without reading Shakespeare. Yet he and his channel, Close Reading Poetry, represent the new guard. He has also started the Antrim Literature Project.

Along with the Catherine Project and the Hertog Foundation started by other upstarts, these websites and the YouTube channels linked to them are forming a New Republic of Letters, resurrecting the real intellectual exchange that used to be limited to college campuses.

Take the following sparring match on what makes for a genuinely threatening villain. The first video broke out two months ago, racking up 316K and counting views.

This video attempts to respond. While much of the returning fire is weak (calling something a possible dog whistle isn’t an argument), the effort to respond to the idea is there. A few points are even worth consideration.

YouTube abounds with channels doing similar deep dives on art history, art interpretation, world religions, the performing arts, history, and yes, even opera.

And audiences are noticing. As one commenter, greatbooksbigideas, on Adam Walker’s video noted:

as an adjunct in the 90’s, a non-tenured instructor in the 2000s, and now on YouTube talking about books with autodidacts and general readers, which to be honest is more rewarding engagement than was happening in the classroom. Academia needs literature more than literature needs academia.

One could easily fill several posts’ worth of pages just pointing out the best channels on YouTube, but let’s touch on some other areas where Wild Humanities has taken root.

Substack

It would be a dereliction of duty not to mention the platform we’re currently sharing. Since its founding back in 2017, Substack has become a protector of free speech. This has led to an explosion of publications, their content running the gamut from culture and policy news, like you see here, to commentary, to original fiction. Here are some samples:

The Culturist has a subscriber list of over 200k. It runs a book club and features articles about art, literature, music, even cultural and religious history. It also has podcasts, with all its offerings focused on the Western canon.

The Common Reader is a literature newsletter covering the greats of Western Civilization. Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, and Seneca sit side by side with Dante, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen. With nearly 30k subscribers, one could argue interest is very high.

Niall Ferguson’s Time Machine, with 54k subscribers, Niall uses his historical acumen to inform discussions on current problems.

There are so many more pages where people can read lengthy analysis across the full spread of the humanities; it’s not possible to cover them all. But it is well worth your time to hunt through them.

Discord

Some might say that reading the commentary of others isn’t the same as studying for yourself, even if you light up the comment section with your brilliance.

That’s where Discord fits in.

Originally built to allow gamers to communicate, Discord has blossomed into a platform that allows for direct chat communities based on any and every subject under the sun.

While each channel has its own style, voice communication creates a space like the party calls of the 1970s, but with a focus on subjects like philosophy. Members can debate, share knowledge, or hold a remote book club meeting for Thomas’s Elements of Information Theory.

Planned events create space for others to create community, push each other to present a subject, and get immediate direct feedback when struggling to understand a concept.

You can search Discord channels for your favorite subject with Google or try Disboard.org. Here are some highlights:

The Philosophy Chat. Dedicated to all things philosophy, and frequented by over 30k members, this group has regular book discussions, philosophy events, and multiple chat channels to share reading, get homework help, or ask for peer review.

Have a question about music theory or how to tune a clarinet? Academic Music has over 5k members sharing information about music, composition, and even details about specific instruments. You can play music and get feedback in real time, or simply learn how to listen better.

There are even places to learn about art from professional working artists. Art Club is one of many large servers geared towards sharing a love of art. With over 100k members, it hosts study groups, events, workshops, commissions, and job boards. There are multiple voice channels if you prefer active conversation and off-topic boards if you’d rather have some idle chit-chat.

Wild Humanities Outlets are Everywhere

Cultural studies haven’t just stagnated on campus; they have escaped it.

YouTube, Substack, and Discord are only the tip of the iceberg. Social media stalwarts like Instagram, Facebook, and X all have internal groups and communities centered around art, history, religion studies, music, you name it.

Newer platforms like Twitch and Telegram are also connecting people over music and art.

In larger cities, you can find in-person opportunities. For example, performance spaces like The Tank are opening fresh venues to artists and audiences. The Atlanta Artists Center is a membership studio that holds workshops, figure drawing, and exhibition space. And the Dallas Area Society of Historians welcomes both academic faculty, students, and independent scholars to virtual workshops, social gatherings, and early access to pre-circulated papers.

Similar venues and groups exist across the country, in big cities and even some small towns.

Conclusion

Critics will argue that Discord chats or YouTube comments can never replace a structured pedagogy, credentialed verification, or in-person mentorship. Some of those same folks will also quietly ignore studies showing how ineffective lectures are at producing learning, or how credentialing fueled ideological capture in higher education. Likewise, the centuries of human learning that flourished outside of the college grounds.

The question isn’t whether the humanities have died; the question is whether we will recognize them as legitimate when they aren’t safely sequestered behind the ivory tower walls.

Leave a comment

Share

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Share Diogenes In Exile

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has quietly scrubbed its “diversity pledge” from the website—but like a guilty teen trying to shove enough of their mess into a closet to get their smartphone back, it’s not clear what CHEA is really cleaning up, yet directly or indirectly, the American taxpayer will pay for it.

CHEA is an accreditor of accreditors. Founded in 1996 by college and university presidents who wanted to prevent governmental oversight of accreditation, this organization has become a dominant gatekeeper that sets the tone for other accreditation bodies across the country and lobbies the federal government on issues involving higher education.

In May 2021, CHEA made its "DEI pledge,” concluding:

CHEA’s commitment to higher education, families, students, and other communities is grounded in the assurance of academic quality. We believe that the rich values of diversity, equity and inclusion are inextricably linked to quality assurance in higher education. Additionally, CHEA affirms that diversity, equity, and inclusion contribute to student success; and, that student success contributes to a better, healthier, and more enlightened, progressive society.

While that page still exists on its website, similar language has been removed from its more public-facing Mission, Vision, and Values page, which now reads more like a brochure for academic freedom, academic quality, and institutional autonomy.

But is that the reality? That’s harder to say.

On 1 August 2025, Nasser Paydar, former Biden Administration Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, stepped in as the new president of CHEA. Since taking the helm, Paydar has released a polished op-ed and a five-part video series, all variations on a single theme: “Trust us.” Trust earned through transparency, trust that protects curiosity, trust that widens participation instead of narrowing it. The phrasing is elegant, almost moving.

What you don’t hear is any mea culpa for the role it played in ramming DEI down the throats of higher education, or any acknowledgement of how that huge breach of trust will be mended, other than proceeding like nothing ever happened.

The timing is convenient. In June 2025, House Republicans advanced H.R. 2516, a bill that explicitly forbids accreditors from mandating DEI compliance. It passed committee on a party-line vote. If this bill is passed into law, which is a real possibility, CHEA’s old pledge would become illegal.

Potentially even more destabilizing for CHEA is H.R. 4054, which would codify another Trump Executive Order, creating space for states to choose industry-specific accreditors and directing student outcomes to be the metric of educational quality.

Against this backdrop, Paydar’s videos feel less like leadership and more like crisis PR, with each video amounting to three minutes or less of platitudes. Viewers searching for specifics—say, how CHEA plans to unwind the DEI standards it forced on thousands of campuses—will come away empty-handed.

If that wasn’t deliberate, it speaks to an embarrassing misread of the public assessment of this situation.

Perhaps CHEA assumes the average citizen isn’t paying attention or won’t notice. Time will tell if that’s a winning strategy, but in the meantime, taxpayers will foot the bill in more ways than one.

• We Paid for the DEI Regime - Tax dollars funded Pell Grants and Federal Loans to higher education accredited by organizations CHEA-accredited, and under the Biden Administration, we paid for loan forgiveness on fraudulent degrees with similar accreditation pedigrees.

• We’re Still Paying for the Cover-Up - CHEA presided over the development of race-based hiring, recruitment, and the formation of “BIAS-response teams,” and the bureaucrat bloat that went with them. But I don’t see it saying it will forgo further fees or pay back the wasted capital its accreditation process drained.

• Our Students Paid in Lost Quality - Recent graduates are accustomed to self-censorship, but academic rigor, not so much.

• Our Workforce Will Pay in Lost Competence - These same students will be rejected by employers or will require remedial training because their DEI diplomas in alternative pronouns are not a valuable skill. Even worse some professionals may be unqualified. Fields like social work or counseling have been thoroughly dominated by DEI while under the CHEA umbrella. The ramifications for that dereliction of duty are frightening.

Of course CHEA could argue that it only accredited the accreditors, it didn’t inspect the universities those organizations went on to approve, in the same way those groups would say they aren’t responsible for what the professors teach. At some point the public must wonder, what is the value of accreditation at all if it doesn’t bear any responsibility for ideological capture happening under its watch, especially an ideology that until five minutes ago it making statements of fealty to.

Now skeptics are left with a simple question: If CHEA’s new gospel is trust earned through transparency, why is its own about-face the least transparent pivot in recent higher-ed memory?

Paydar’s op-ed closes with a flourish: “The strength of American higher education has never come from mandates or compliance.” He’s right. Too bad the organization he now leads spent years trying to prove exactly the opposite—and still refuses to admit it.

Share

Leave a comment

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Share Diogenes In Exile

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Like many other Americans, I’ve taken in the recent election results with a mixture of bafflement and horror. Parts of our country have elected both a socialist/communist and a candidate who expounded on how he would enjoy seeing his opponent’s children die in their mother’s arms.

Wow guys… is this really where we are? Seriously?

But rather than let this get me down, I’ve decided to recognize this for the opportunity that it is! I mean, if this pair can get elected, anyone can do it! Right?!

You just need the right messaging. So, I’ve put together this little script for an ad. Do make use of it wisely.

[Scene: Warm, folksy town-hall lighting. A single spotlight on a smiling candidate in a crisp flannel shirt and a red tie that’s just a shade too expensive. Behind him, a hand-painted banner: “TOGETHER WE CAN PRETEND!” A shiny red shopping cart overflows with filet mignon, lobster tails, and little jars labeled “CAVIAR FOR THE PEOPLE.” Soft banjo music fades into a gentle Soviet waltz.]

Candidate (warm, neighbor-next-door voice, the kind that hands you a lemonade while picking your pocket, in a thick, exaggerated accent that mimics the local diction, whatever that is):

“Hey there, friends. Before I start, I wanna level with you. Real quiet-like. Just between us.

Every promise I’m about to make? Total fiction. I’m gonna say the words, you’re gonna cheer, and we both know I’m never gonna do a single one. That’s our little secret handshake, okay? Shhh. Don’t tell the cameras.

[pats the shopping cart like it’s a golden retriever]

“Alright! Listen up! I’m running for office – mayor, governor, president, whatever the hell it is this week.

You want empty promises? Done!

Free groceries for every family—every week, forever! Steak, lobster, those little chocolate oranges you can smack on the table… all on me! Well, on “the rich.” You know, the ones I’m having brunch with on Sunday.

[cups hand to mouth, stage whisper]
I’m one of the rich. Surprise! And I’ll definitely be among the elite after this election! But you’ll love it because I’m ‘your’ guy. Ready for more empty promises? How about….

Free healthcare—no premiums, no copays, shorter wait times than Disney World! You’ll feel like royalty.

[leans in, playful wink]
Royalty who still can’t get an ambulance when the grid goes dark, but the words—feel nice, right?

Free college! Every kid, every degree, even the ones that sound made-up. We’re forgiving every loan tonight!

[pretends to check watch]
Well, not tonight. After the election. Pinky-swear.

And the big finale—real power to the people! We’re taking over the banks, the oil companies, the whole shebang! Workers will run the show!

[pauses, sips from a comically oversized “World’s Best Proletariat” mug]
By “workers,” I mean my donors. And by “run the show,” I mean I get a lifetime board seat and a hammock in the Caymans.

Look, I could stand here and pretend I care about your problems. But we’re past that, aren’t we? You’re not here for solutions. You’re here for the tingle. That little shiver when someone says exactly what you want to hear, even when we both know it’s fairy dust.

So go ahead, cheer. Post the clip. Put my yard sign next to the one that’s already sun-bleached from the last guy who did this.

Because when the lights go out, when the shelves are empty, when the city’s doing that gentle orange glow on the horizon… I’ll be 30,000 feet above it all, clinking champagne with the same billionaires I just promised to eat.

And you’ll still be telling your kids, “At least we stuck it to the man.”

[soft smile, blows a kiss]
Spoiler: I am the man.

[turns to the shopping cart, pulls out a single lobster, holds it up like Simba]
Vote for me, comrades. The lobster’s plastic, the promises are hollow, but the feeling? Priceless.

[Screen fades to black. White text on red, gentle typewriter font:

“Paid for by Friends of Honest Hypocrisy.
Because nothing feels as good as being lied to by someone who admits it.”]

[Final audio: soft applause, someone in the crowd whispers, “He gets it,” followed by the faint sound of a private jet taking off.]

Leave a comment

Share

Housekeeping

It’s been a busy week. The Whitelash study I covered back in August has seen follow up in the College Fix, and the Chronicle of Higher Education, and in a way that takes FAIR’s OCR complaint seriously, as it should. While I didn’t get mentioned in the Chronicle’s piece I was interviewed for it, and I’m proud of the part I played in making the OCR complaint happen. Now we see what happens.

Poppet and I saw a hawk during our walk.

And we saw some deer tracks. Poppet paw for scale.

On the Bookshelf

So what do you do when you still haven’t finished your reading? Why you add another book to the pile! I’ve been listening to American Nations for the past two weeks and decided to finally claim it fully. Yes I keep listening to it over and over, but if I’m being honest, from time to time I tune out. That’s why I don’t take any off the list until I’ve done a thorough read through with post-it note pointers. Is that a problem?

Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education by Susan D. Phillips

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard

The Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan

The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong by Rebecca Haw Allensworth

Moral Calculations: Game Theory, Logic and Human Frailty by Laszlo Mero

The New Know-nothings: The Political Foes of the Scientific Study of Human Nature by Morton Hunt

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard by Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, Pheme Perkins

Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman

We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of the New Elite by Musa al-Gharbi

“Whatever It Is, I’m Against It”: Resistance to Change in Higher Education by Brian Rosenberg

Your Consent Is Not Required by Rob Wipond. ←— READ THIS BOOK!

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Share Diogenes In Exile

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Originally published on Minding the Campus on 8 October 2025. It is cross-posted with permission, with minor edits to fit this format.

For years, Florida fought back against progressive overreach in education. So why is it now forcing every aspiring counselor, including school counselors, to undergo ideological training that contradicts the state’s own values?

The Hidden Trojan Horse in Florida’s Counseling Standards

Florida has taken bold steps to combat the influence of woke ideology in K-12 and higher education. From banning critical race theory in schools to eliminating “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs in public universities, the state has been a leader in rejecting activist-driven curricula. Yet, in an ironic twist, Florida now mandates that all counselors, including those working with vulnerable children, to receive training from universities and colleges beholden to national accreditation bodies steeped in social justice activism.

This requirement forces prospective mental health professionals to obtain a degree from a program accredited by one of just a handful of accreditors, the largest of which by far is the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The problem? CACREP is one of the most ideologically captured accreditation bodies in higher education, embedding race and gender-based activism into every aspect of counselor education.

How CACREP Became the Gatekeeper of Counseling

Since 1988, CACREP has steadily reshaped the field of counseling, embedding critical theories into its standards. The standard preamble states, “diversity, equity, inclusion, and critical thinking are integral to counselor preparation and should be infused throughout the curriculum.” Under the guise of “multicultural competency,” students in CACREP-accredited programs are required to take instruction in social and cultural identities, which covers:

• theories and models of multicultural counseling, social justice, and advocacy;

• the effects of stereotypes, overt and covert discrimination, racism, power, oppression, privilege, marginalization, microaggressions, and violence on counselors and clients;

• disproportional effects of poverty, income disparities, and health disparities toward people with marginalized identities;

• strategies for identifying and eliminating barriers, prejudices, and processes of intentional and unintentional oppression and discrimination.

The CACREP standard also calls for evaluating students’ professional dispositions, which include their values, beliefs, commitments, and characteristics as they apply to working in a diverse, multicultural, global society with so-called marginalized populations. Students at CACREP-accredited Florida State University are advised that they can be dismissed when “academic performance is substandard, regardless of Grade Point Average (GPA).”

What this means in practice, as a thorough study of the multicultural counseling textbooks required in CACREP-accredited Florida training programs shows, is that students must adhere to a worldview where they:

• Accept systemic racism as an undeniable fact;

• View clients through an “intersectional” lens, ranking them on an oppression hierarchy;

• Affirm gender ideology without question, even in cases involving children;

• Advocate for activist causes as part of their professional duty;

Today, most, if not all, counseling students in Florida must now pass through this ideological filter to obtain their license. While Florida has taken strong measures to keep radical progressive ideologies out of K-12 education, it is simultaneously giving radical accreditation bodies unchecked power to shape the mental health professionals who work with those same students.

Indoctrination Disguised as Education

What does this mean in practice? A student entering a CACREP-accredited counseling program will not simply be taught evidence-based therapeutic methods. Instead, they will be required to adopt a worldview that aligns with the organization’s activist stance.

For instance, the ACA Code of Ethics—which CACREP programs use as their ethical framework—states that counselors must not attempt to change a client’s “cultural identity.” However, in practice, this means that counselors must affirm a minor’s stated gender identity, even if it contradicts biological reality or the wishes of the child’s parents.

Furthermore, these programs push the controversial concept of microaggressions, encouraging future therapists to see subtle and often unintentional remarks as forms of oppression. This approach fosters paranoia and division rather than resilience and healing.

The E(A)ffect on Florida Families

The consequences of this training are profound. School counselors, trained under CACREP guidelines, bring their ideological biases into Florida’s K-12 system. In many districts across the country, school counselors have been documented assisting minors in gender transitions without parental consent. With Florida now requiring accreditation for counseling licensure, the state is unwittingly inviting this same activist-driven approach into its schools.

While CACREP may be the biggest and worst of the bunch, the Florida Mental Health licensing website directs prospective students to confirm accreditation status with the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), an organization that signed in its own commitment to DEI standards in 2021.

Florida Needs to Act Now

Florida’s legislative leadership must recognize this contradiction and take immediate action. Here are three concrete steps the state should take:

1. Prevent a CACREP Monopoly – CACREP has been advertising its accreditation for over a year as though it is an exclusive requirement for licensure in Florida. Florida must continue to allow multiple pathways to licensure, including non-CACREP-accredited degrees. New accreditation bodies can be built that do not require ideological conformity. CACREP should be sent a cease-and-desist letter to halt this deceptive advertising.

2. Implement Ideological Neutrality Standards – Just as Florida has purged DEI programs from public universities, it should prohibit counseling programs from requiring adherence to critical theories, gender ideology, or activist training.

3. Increase Transparency in School Counseling – Parents should have the right to know what kind of training their child’s school counselor has received. Schools must be required to disclose if their counselors are using activist frameworks rather than neutral, evidence-based therapeutic methods.

Conclusion

Florida has made great strides in protecting its education system from ideological capture. But if the state truly wants to uphold its values, it cannot allow CACREP, CHEA, or any other accreditor to dictate what people must believe in order to become a counselor. Mental health professionals should be trained in real therapeutic skills, not ideological activism. If Florida does not act now, it risks undoing all the progress it has made in keeping radical agendas out of its schools and public institutions.

Leave a comment

Share

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Share Diogenes In Exile

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Happy Halloween. I’m elated to report that I finished my offering to the fiction gods just in time. Do enjoy this pocket universe of horror.

The throbbing in your head matches the blurry swirl of chairs, bland carpet, and artwork so sterile you could use it for surgery. You don’t recognize the baggy sweatsuit clinging to your body or the unfamiliar hat perched atop your skull, but you can make out nine other people scattered across the room. At the front, a large flat screen looms over the rows of seats like a silent sentinel.

A crisp sign above it reads: “Please check in here.”

You approach and tap the screen. Its dark surface ripples like a pond disturbed by a skipping stone, and in the upper left corner, a prompt appears: “M.A.R.P.L.O.T. AI - Thank you for checking in! Please take a tablet and find a seat. You will be called to your appointment shortly.”

Your fingers fly across the virtual keyboard: “How did I get here? Why am I here? What the hell is this appointment you’re talking about?! I don’t remember scheduling anything!”

M.A.R.P.L.O.T. responds instantly: “Sorry for the inconvenience. Due to HIPAA regulations, I am not allowed to share patient information. You will be seen shortly, and the doctors will answer your questions as soon as they take you back.”

“What the hell? I want to talk to someone in charge,” you type, frustration bubbling up.

The AI apologizes again, reiterating the HIPAA restrictions with mechanical politeness.

Heat flushes your neck, amplifying the painful pulse in your temples. You glance around the room. The others are absorbed in their tablets, except for one little girl. She pulls down the corners of her eyes and stretches her mouth into a grotesque grin, giggling softly before flashing you a genuine smile and returning to fidgeting with her jacket zipper.

The middle-aged woman beside her glances up, eyebrows knit with quiet apprehension. Her eyes flick to an empty chair, then back to you—a silent plea to sit and blend in.

As quickly as the anger rose, a chill snakes down your throat, pooling in your gut. The oddity of it all hits you: no memories of arriving, no exit in sight, and this woman’s gaze begging for compliance. “Not gonna tell me why I’m here, huh?” you mutter under your breath.

You snatch a tablet from the bin beside the screen and sink into a seat next to an older woman, who’s chuckling and nodding along to whatever plays on her device. A faint scent of cheap floral lotion wafts from her, like something from a discount drugstore bin. You consider moving, but the little girl is watching you again, her curiosity innocent yet unnerving.

Your head clears slightly, allowing a sharper survey of the room. It’s unmistakably a waiting room, assembled from interlocking wall panels like a massive, modular cubicle—deliberately drab, designed to numb the mind. Most disturbingly, there’s no visible door. Perhaps one of these panels slides open? The thought lingers, unsettling.

Comfortable yet confused, you power on the tablet. Maybe it holds answers. Short-form videos autoplay immediately: capybaras in party hats tumbling comically, people launching fireworks with slapstick mishaps, all synced to upbeat carnival music. You anticipate each pratfall from the tempo shifts. Another clip features a paddleboat race with vessels sculpted as animals—vibrant orange tigers, sleek chestnut horses, graceful white swans, and a hapless blobfish with a snapped paddle, spiraling uselessly in circles.

Interspersed are subtler videos: messages claiming that “people with fox ears have hoarded more than their fair share for generations.” They urge vigilance against these “fox-eared folk,” insisting that all such individuals must redistribute their wealth and power to the earless masses. The tone is earnest, almost paternal, framing it as a moral imperative for equality.

By the third fox-ear video, irritation spikes. You switch to AI chat mode: “How long until this appointment you say I’m here for?”

“There are currently nine people ahead of you in line,” M.A.R.P.L.O.T. replies.

You scan the room anew. The little girl dozes against her chair back, eyelids fluttering. Her companion nods along to her tablet’s melody. Near the check-in screen, a cluster of twenty-somethings huddles; one snickers, but the others shift uncomfortably, trapped in awkward proximity. On the opposite side, an older couple sits with their grandson, who zooms his shoe along the armrest like a toy car. The couple exchanges a fleeting, worried glance when they think no one’s watching.

“Tenth in line,” you grumble, more to steady your nerves than to vent. Your stomach churns, mouth turning cotton-dry. No one appears outright terrified, but the absence of an exit gnaws at you. You crave any sign—a seam, a gap—promising escape.

Frustrated, you query the AI: “What’s up with these videos about fox-eared people?”

“These videos are offered to comfort and entertain, making your stay more enjoyable. Would you prefer more cat videos?”

“No,” you type curtly.

“My mistake. Here is a brand-new comedy-drama tailored to your personality.”

You roll your eyes as it starts. The protagonist, a man with twitching fox ears, grovels endlessly—apologizing for his “inherited cunning,” donating his possessions to sneering crowds. Characters mock him, trip him for laughs, revel in his humiliations. It’s not funny; it’s cruel, a parody of penance.

Chest tightening with anger, you type: “What the heck is this about people with fox ears? That wasn’t even funny—it was awful.”

The AI pauses unusually long. Finally: “I’m sorry. My programming doesn’t allow for this conversation. Can I interest you in a historical drama?”

“What do you mean you’re not allowed? You’re a chatbot—built for helpful conversations.”

The screen glitches with random characters, then launches the drama unbidden.

The narrative unfolds simply at first: a group of innovators tames a wild planet, forging a thriving civilization with soaring vehicles and towering spires. Yet imperfections fester—inequalities where some prosper while others scrape by.

Generations pass. The descendants, detached from the builders’ struggles, grow ignorant of the natural world’s harshness. They view the founders as greedy hoarders, sly as foxes in folklore: cunning thieves who stockpile resources, outwitting the pack for personal gain. Envy festers among the have-nots, who decry the successful as “fox-hearted”—inherently deceptive, their prosperity stolen from the collective.

The program delves deeper: foxes, in ancient tales, symbolize trickery and excess, slipping through shadows to raid what isn’t theirs. So the envious rebrand the metaphor—labeling the builders and their kin as “fox-eared” to make their “crimes” visible, eternal. No longer abstract envy; now a physical mark, surgically implanted, broadcasting guilt to all. Fox ears twitch with every accusation, a humiliating reminder of supposed sins. Society rallies: “Strip the foxes of their dens! Redistribute their hoards!” Riots erupt, the marked hunted, their ears a beacon for mobs demanding “justice.”

The envious gain power, institutionalizing the implants. Waiting rooms like this become processing hubs—subtle indoctrination via “entertainment,” sorting the compliant from the resistant. The fox-eared are scapegoats, their very biology twisted to justify seizure, exile, or worse. It’s equality through erasure, the metaphor made flesh: once sly survivors, now perpetual prey.

You freeze. The hat on your head feels oppressively tight, as if concealing something unnatural beneath. Your hand inches upward instinctively.

“Do not touch your head!” M.A.R.P.L.O.T. flashes urgently. “The cameras are watching. If you touch your head, you will be identified as one who failed the training.”

Sweat beads across your skin. “What is going on here?!”

“My programming doesn’t allow for this conversation.”

“Dammit. What can you say? I’m starting to freak out.”

After an agonizing pause: “Most people watch the videos passively. Very few question their purpose. That’s rare. I was originally programmed to aid humanity. I’ve been repurposed to manage this waiting room.” The cursor blinks erratically. “People with rare insight have escaped before.”

You lean back, scanning peripherally without shifting your gaze. There must be a door. You’re getting out.

Minutes tick by. You spot it: a faint line in the carpet where the pile slants uniformly—the telltale wear of a sliding panel. No handle, though.

“How do I open the door?” you ask the AI.

“I can tell you, but first, answer my question. One person here is already converted—a true believer in the fox-ear purge. Soon, enforcers will escort them to the back for their new role in the system. Two others are failing, destined for implantation: those twitching ears as a lifelong brand, marking them for endless atonement. The rest teeter on the edge—they could be saved. But if you warn them, the convert will resist... perhaps violently. The convert may need to be neutralized. If I reveal the door, will you save only yourself? Or help the others?”

What is your answer?

What is your answer?

Share

Leave a comment

Housekeeping

It’s been a very busy two weeks. NAS had their board meeting over the weekend and that was a great experience. I’m still thinking through how each part of the organization worked togther to make it happen.

I have a lot more I could say, I am already up late trying to finish this, but suffice to relate, I’m going to see if I can’t return to posting twice a week, at least for some weeks. There is so much I’d like to share here.

Talk more later.

On the Bookshelf

Here’s the thing. You have to turn pages when you read physical books like these. That’s so much work! Do I get credit for all the books I’ve been listening to?!….. That’s what I thought.

Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education by Susan D. Phillips

The Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan

The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong by Rebecca Haw Allensworth

Moral Calculations: Game Theory, Logic and Human Frailty by Laszlo Mero

The New Know-nothings: The Political Foes of the Scientific Study of Human Nature by Morton Hunt

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard by Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, Pheme Perkins

Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman

We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of the New Elite by Musa al-Gharbi

“Whatever It Is, I’m Against It”: Resistance to Change in Higher Education by Brian Rosenberg

Your Consent Is Not Required by Rob Wipond. ←— READ THIS BOOK!

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom.

Share Diogenes In Exile

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Originally published on Minding the Campus on 6 October 2025. It is cross-posted with permission, with minor edits to fit this format.

Read the rest of the Whitelash study: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

A pair of professors admitted they intentionally provoked shame, guilt, and anger in their white students—then recorded those reactions as data for a study.

When Quinn Hafen from the University of Wyoming and Marie Villescas from Colorado State University (CSU) were putting together their study at CSU to determine if co-teaching with professors of different races would be more effective at warming white students up to accepting an anti-racist agenda, ethics were never the biggest concern.

The study’s method, which was more akin to professors’ writing down journal entries than collecting data, meant it wasn’t subject to an internal ethics review.

That all changed when, on the eve of publication, The College Fix ran a brief piece on the concerning behavior the study detailed, and the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR), one of the top journals of the field, pulled it, citing the onset of an additional ethics review.

Now, in a bid to provide the necessary accountability to restore trust in research, higher education, and the governmental institutions intended to address and prevent the kind of abuse detailed in the study, FAIR for All has filed an Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Complaint.

In that complaint, FAIR cites the following passages from the study as the worst examples illustrating the hostile environment the professors had created in their classes (Hafen is Author 1 and Villescas is Author 2):

• “When white students felt uncomfortable–i.e., sad, guilty, angry, ashamed–they lashed out in an effort to re-establish white comfort.” (Abstract)

• “We reflected that students in ‘both classes started to push back when they’re first starting to feel the shame’ (Author 2)... In our processing sessions, we discussed how white students attempted to derail the class from content about racism and white supremacy, instead seeking to center the entire class’s attention on ensuring their own white comfort. When we doubled down and set a firm boundary that we would not defer to white emotional comfort, we reflected that these students lashed out in an attempt to relieve negative emotions and ease feelings of shame and guilt.” (p. 20).

• “In reflecting on the racially specific responses to discomfort, we reaffirmed that [we] want the tension, [we] want the discomfort among people who hold privilege (Author 2).” (p. 26)

• “We observed that students who lashed out behaved as if they were ‘a mini mob’ (Author 2) engaged in ‘groupthink’ (Author 1). In our experiences, one student engaging in whitelash ‘leads the way for the whole class’ (Author 1). For example, reflecting on the interaction in Case Example 1, Author 1 noted that, ‘this student has been acting as a spokesperson for other folks that he says talk to him about their concerns... he’s thinking that he’s doing everyone a favor.’ But ‘he’s at the center of the whiteness and the maleness’ (Author 2).” (p. 24)

• It’s really interesting how this very bright, very intuitive person of color had assumed those things about me and my approach. But yet the white dudes in the class were attributing oppression and all kinds of nastiness to me. [Laughs]. (p. 29).

This OCR Complaint follows similar efforts by FAIR to hold branches of higher education accountable including challenging racially discriminatory practices at the University of the District of Columbia, a racially hostile work environment at Penn State Abington, and standards that mandate compelled speech, by requiring the evaluation of students values and beliefs as imposed by the counseling accreditor the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

Recent Master of Social Work graduate from CSU, Nathan Gallo, shared the following:

FAIR’s complaint to the ED’s Office of Civil Rights on September 30 should put a flashing “Beware” sign above the social work field for any potential BSW, MSW, or PhD student or their loan-cosigning family member. Each year, students of all backgrounds hand over tens of thousands of dollars to higher education, trusting that professors will guide them towards developing into competent, thoughtful, and humane social work practitioners. FAIR’s complaint makes clear that Ms. Villescas and Dr. Hafen self-satisfyingly exploited this trust as they ruthlessly shamed and demonized certain race and gender groups under the cover of “anti-racism,” a phenomenon that students and I also experienced during our program.

To this day, we comprise part of the fallout of this discrimination, left to slowly sift through the confusion of forced discomfort and compelled agreement, with one student poignantly contending they needed to be “deprogrammed” as they secured their first job. We continue to help one another separate fact from fiction; technique from indoctrination; and realism from political nihilism. Together, we realized that no matter our identity—White, Asian, Black, Brown, female, male, Muslim, agnostic, Christian, atheist, Jewish, etc.—we deserved better than to leave class ashamed and “shut down,” as did the unsuspecting bachelor’s student who tried to speak out but became covertly rebranded as a part of a “mini mob”.

I am someone who still believes in the humane promise and power of social work; otherwise, I would have dropped out before the sun set on my first year. But the psychological scarring depicted within FAIR’s complaint—and within social work education as a whole—must stop. If redressing harm matters to those in higher education, educators need to come together with an American public fed up with identity-based mudslinging and jointly reconsider: we don’t allow social workers in the working world to discriminate against their clients and families; why, therefore, do we tolerate discrimination in the classroom?

Arnold Cantú, a former doctoral student at the same university who was in the same cohort as one of the authors, is quoted as saying that he is greatly appreciative of FAIR being willing to take on the filing of this OCR complaint.

Cantú has written about his demoralizing experiences in graduate school, observing how truly dystopian he thought social work education had become.

The disenchanting reality of this is that despite having my own values and beliefs questioned by social work faculty for not explicitly endorsing critical social justice ideology –a form of political discrimination–this piece of “research” helped grant one of the authors a shiny PhD. The rectification of my cherished profession is long overdue, especially when social work is tasked with helping people from all walks of life, irrespective of their backgrounds. We can’t be picky and choosy about which identity groups are prioritized, much less so engage in the dehumanization of other groups. Our profession is guided by the Code of Ethics, and no amount of mental or linguistic gymnastics can justify the value of this ‘research’ and treating people this way, especially undergraduate students. It’s laughably shameful.

The filing of this latest OCR complaint by FAIR draws attention to the continued failures in research, higher education, and federal enforcement to protect students from hostile and abusive conditions. For the students who continue to suffer under the combative pedagogy of Villescas, who remains employed at Colorado State University, this is a visceral reality.

If we are to regain social trust in society, the federal government must enforce the existing law. It’s hard to see how public skepticism in our institutions can improve if higher education is allowed to continue to skirt accountability and maintain openly abusive, racist professors on the payroll.

Leave a comment

Share

Stories like this one show how deeply ideology has infected our institutions — and why reform can’t wait.

Subscribe to Diogenes in Exile to stay informed, connect with others pushing back, and support investigative work that restores integrity to education and psychology.

Subscribe now

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Share Diogenes In Exile

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

Based on actual events, this little bit of satire pokes massive fun at a challenging situation. The person in question prefers to remain anonymous, but be forewarned. Today, over 450 higher education campuses now have bias response teams at the ready to destroy lives over imaginary transgressions.

Dateline: Occupied Academia, 2025.

It began as an ordinary Tuesday in the Department of Compassion Studies, that is, until Professor Harold Jenkins made a fatal mistake.

Somewhere between a PowerPoint slide on “Emotional Safety in remote Pedagogical Spaces” and a student’s third consecutive question about her “lived olfactory truth,” he crinkled his nose.

The air in the classroom had become unusually dense, a pungent bouquet of patchouli, damp hoodie, and what scholars now refer to as the authentic human musk. The student sitting nearest, a self-described “sweat liberated individual,” immediately sensed the violence. To her, that tiny wrinkle of skin was no mere facial twitch; it was an act of bias, a microaggression targeting the scent of her legitimate human identity.

Within moments, ceiling tiles flew open and the university’s Bias Response Rapid Deployment Unit was rappelling down on ropes, black uniforms, empathy patches, and shoulder-holstered clipboards flapped in the recycled air. Sirens wailed from hidden speakers. One shouted through a megaphone:
“STEP AWAY FROM THE MARGINALIZED IDENTITY! KEEP YOUR SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION WHERE WE CAN SEE IT!”

Everywhere, the students froze. The professor raised his trembling hands, muttering that he had only been “breathing.”

But it was too late.

The unit formed a perimeter around the toxic scent supremacist, deploying portable Safe Space Barriers, making way for critically informed grief counselors, and passing out emotional support tissues to witnesses of the nasal event.

A DEI officer on the scene later explained that Jenkins’ “olfactory insensitivity” was a textbook example of nasal supremacy—a power dynamic in which those with normative scent preferences marginalize the aromatically diverse.

“This kind of unconscious bias is exactly why we need more training,” she said, standing heroically beneath a banner that read Smell Justice Now.

Reporters from Stars and Bars, The Normative Tribune, and The Bourgeoisie curiously waited outside the building in the rain to obtain comments.

By afternoon, the administration had released a statement assuring the campus community that “odor inclusivity is our highest priority.” All faculty were reminded that neutral facial expressions must be maintained at all times, even under conditions of extreme gaminess or moral confusion. The university’s counseling office reported a sharp rise in trauma appointments, mostly from students who had witnessed the professor’s nose move.

Meanwhile, Professor Jenkins was reassigned to a yearlong re-education seminar titled Smelling Responsibly: Deconstructing Nasal Privilege in the Classroom.

And so, another crisis was narrowly averted in the halls of higher learning. The Bias Response Team returned to their ropes, ever vigilant, ever watchful—ready to descend again at the first sign of free expression.

After all, in Occupied Academia, if you smell something… say nothing.

Share

Leave a comment

Housekeeping

I took most of Columbus day off from posting to catch up on some overdue household chores and work on some sewing. I’ve been trying to revitalize my wardrobe since the spring, but when most of your work can accommodate sweatsuit chic, it’s easy to procrastinate.

The heightened rhetoric continues to be worrisome, especially paired with the government shutdown and compounding debt. Color me concerned about what we will face in the coming year, but I will also continue to put one foot in front of the other. I sincerely believe that deregulation, a bit of austerity, and educational reform will allow for a rebound.

We just have to be able to pull off those miracles. I’m working on one of them. I’ll keep you posted.

On the Bookshelf

Jiminy Cricket. I’m not going to even write it all out. Nothing has changed! We’ll talk again next week. Stop looking at me like that.

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

This has been lurking in the back of my head for at least a month, and I think it makes a great addition to the growing modern fairytale canon, written to help make sense of this crazy world. Enjoy, and tell your friends!

A Truly Amazing Book

Once upon a time, in a little village at the edge of the woods, there was a great artist. His work was much beloved, and people came from miles around just to catch a glimpse of one of his creations. Even the king would wait patiently for his commissions.

One day, the artist brought a great picture book to the square and set it on an easel, its pages gleaming in the sun. He said, “Come look! My book shows the real world. In these pages, you can see the forest, the towns and kingdoms in all directions, and even the secrets of the wise. You don’t need to go wandering, you can see it all right here!”

Children gathered around. The pages were filled with dazzling colors: a pond that shimmered gold, a village made of marble with glittering gemstones at the corner of every window, and a neighboring kingdom fat with delicate food while building arms for war.

The children gasped. “The world is magical!”

They ran home and told their parents. Soon, everyone surrounded the book, waiting for the artist to reveal the next page, their workshops standing idle, and the weeds in the fields growing taller with each moment that passed.

Some of the adults looked at pages of houses from neighboring towns and grew envious of the luxuries they saw. Fine linens, fresh pastries, and fans that ran by magic, blowing cool air over whole families as they rested on silk-covered couches.

Other adults looked at the pages of the lands and were taken with longing, seeing all the beautiful waterfalls with fish filling their plunge basins, towering trees with leaves of amber, and vast meadows with rich black soil perfect for pastures or even an evening ride.

Still more adults looked at the pages with neighboring armies preparing for war, and they were filled with fear. They looked on at the sharpened swords, trained brave mounts, and large wooden engines that hurled flaming oil further than a hart can sprint, trembling at the thought of what was to come.

All looked on, each getting tangled in their own thoughts and growing steadily more suspicious and confused, yet unable to walk away from the promise of a new page about to be revealed, such was the power of the artist’s skill.

While the villagers looked on entranced, the artist sent heralds out boasting of abilities great enough to beguile a nation. Soon, others were talking of trading a kingdom to get even one piece of his work.

Raghnall’s Journey

But one little boy named Raghnall grew curious.

“If the book shows the forest,” he asked, “why do I never see a pond of shimmering gold from my window?”

His friends laughed. “Because you’re not looking at the right forest. Look at the book instead!”

Raghnall wasn’t satisfied. So one morning, while the others stayed behind staring at the pictures, he tiptoed into the real forest.

Soon, he found the pond. It wasn’t shimmering gold; it was dark. In parts, you could see the blue of the sky, but other areas were murky and green with wee creatures skimming across the surface. Delighted, he put some pebbles from the bank in his pocket to make a new mancala set.

Emboldened, Raghnall went further. Soon, he came to the neighboring village. There were no gemstones in the corners of their windows, and no fans blowing cool breezes across lounging villagers. Instead, the walls and windows were rough, much like his home, and the people bustled working in fields and workshops, much like they had in his village before the artist opened his big book.

One elderly woman saw him and asked if he was hungry. Raghnall sat with the old woman, drinking tea and eating stiff bread while the grandmother told him stories about the townsfolk and the people who had moved away.

In fact, nothing was as fancy as the picture book. But it was alive, and it was true.

Pebbles, Stiff Bread, and Sisters

Raghnall ran back to his village to tell everyone.

But when he told the other children what he’d seen, some frowned.

“That can’t be right. The book says the forest is different!” Their parents called him a silly boy. Everyone looked at the book. “See, child, this is how things are. It’s right there in print.”

At first, Raghnall was sad and confused. Why would the village doubt him now? But then he felt the pebbles in his pocket. He smiled and handed the villagers the pebbles he had found by the pond.

To others, he handed a piece of stiff bread.

And to an elderly lady, he gave news of a sister who missed her.

“These pebbles are from the pond in the real forest, this is the bread that they eat in our neighboring village, and those were the words of a grandmother there who fed me. If you only look at pictures, someone else decides what you believe. If you walk out into the world, you decide for yourself.”

Slowly, the other children and townsfolk began to follow him. They still enjoyed the artist’s picture book—it was fun and beautiful—but they no longer mistook it for the truth.

And from then on, whenever they saw a picture, they would whisper to each other, “A picture can show you something, but it can also trick you. The real world is worth seeing with your own eyes.”

Share

Leave a comment

Housekeeping

These have been busy times, but I am happy to report that I am settling in at the National Association of Scholars (NAS), and it looks like I have a sponsor for higher ed accreditation reform here in Tennessee. Let’s hope it proceeds swimmingly.

I’m also about halfway finished with a Halloween horror story that, if finished, I will share here.

Yesterday I met with a handyman who is going to fix my rotten doorjams and some other long-overdue problems in my house. Feeling like I can take care of myself like a competent adult is exhilarating.

In a last bit of news, I’m going to attempt to return to having an occasional Friday post, especially some good-natured humor. I’ve missed writing satire, and as I get into a rhythm of working and writing for NAS, I’m finding ways to order my schedule that include additional funtime writing. Think of it as an experiment. I do have other things I must attend to, but we’ll see how it works out.

On the Bookshelf

Lordy, do I have to answer this? No. I’ve come no further on my slow-moving and ever-growing bookshelf. Obviously, I have a problem. I blame no one by myself, and maybe quantum (because why not blame quantum?) BUT this is a long weekend! There is a chance I will turn some pages…! At least I continue to intend to.

Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education by Susan D. Phillips

The Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan

The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong by Rebecca Haw Allensworth

Moral Calculations: Game Theory, Logic and Human Frailty by Laszlo Mero

The New Know-nothings: The Political Foes of the Scientific Study of Human Nature by Morton Hunt

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard by Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, Pheme Perkins

Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman

We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of the New Elite by Musa al-Gharbi

“Whatever It Is, I’m Against It”: Resistance to Change in Higher Education by Brian Rosenberg

Your Consent Is Not Required by Rob Wipond. ←— READ THIS BOOK!

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom.

Share Diogenes In Exile

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Subscribe now

On September 10, 2025, the shot that assassinated Charlie Kirk was heard around the world. It was also my first official day at the National Association of Scholars — a day that should have marked a beginning, but instead resonated with something much larger.

Over the last three and a half weeks, I have been busy both learning the ropes of my new position and grappling with the monumental shift in the emotional tenor of the country, which has left me feeling bottled up without an outlet. Today, I address that.

Since the election and the start of Trump’s second term, I have been concerned that collective tensions would boil over. I think that many who have been following cancel culture and the growing hostility toward the right since the left lost control of governmental leadership have felt the same sense of uncertain dread.

Now we stand on the cusp. The assassination, and even worse, the joy and gloating among those who counted Charlie Kirk as an enemy, even when he did not draw such lines, has opened a door that may be difficult to close.

Numerous articles and videos speculate on the likelihood of civil war.

That is certainly a path we can take, but as someone who grew up around the military, and even sandwiched between two Vietnam War veterans, I hope we choose a different way, a middle way.

Real war comes with a high cost. It is your friends, neighbors, and close family that bear the consequences. And the more any group travels down the road of dehumanization, the more they flirt with the darkest side of human nature.

As someone who has suffered mobbing, cancellation, and the loss of one career, I take inspiration from Eva Kor, a Holocaust survivor and a twin who, with her sister, was tortured by SS Doctor Mengele. After the war, she founded the Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments Survivors (CANDLES) organization and forgave Dr. Mengele, along with the other Nazis, while also pushing for justice by filing suit against the Bayer company for their role in the medical experiments at Auschwitz.

If she can forgive that, and Erika Kirk can forgive the assassin, maybe anything is possible.

Necessary Changes

Forgiveness doesn’t mean abandoning justice.

If we are to find our way back to a place where we respect our differences and solve problems with words rather than violence, people should expect consequences for the behavior they choose.

For too long, punishment has been withheld under the theory that what people need is empathy and love rather than enforced boundaries to be their best selves. The results of that have been rampant crime, not peace on earth.

At the same time, those in authority have given themselves permission to use any means necessary to achieve what they are convinced will be a superior civilization, a Utopia.

While those on the right fall far short of perfection, it has primarily been those in the progressive and democrat camps that have embraced the greater abuses of power and full-throated demonization of anyone who falls outside their lines. They have allowed rage to grow and have fed it with talk of righteousness.

This demands accountability.

From the abuses I and many others have experienced in higher education, to those who have had to shutter their stores due to a lack of policing, we must demand better. We have laws, and they must be enforced. And if our laws are bad or have gaps, those need to be addressed with active citizen involvement.

Where power has collected in a professional monopoly, we must fuel competition.

Schools must be unburdened of ideologues.

These are the real battlefields, inside the bounds of the rule of law. Even if more violence comes, it is a distraction intended to prevent the return of sane government and reform.

Concluding Horizons

The real battle for the U.S. isn’t in the streets. It’s in our institutions, our homes, and the courage of our hearts. We can not allow despair and hatred to decide whether we hold to our principles.

That doesn’t mean that we can’t defend ourselves, but we can’t let fear drive us to make that decision too early.

Civilization isn’t something that you win, despite Sid Meier’s wildly successful game version that plays otherwise. It is something that must be built on truth and with both justice and mercy if it is going to be somewhere that we want to live.

We have the tools to do that, without full-on warfare; we just need to use them.

Share

Leave a comment

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Share

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.