In honor of Presidents’ Day, ostensibly the day where the office of the President of the United States is honored (I much preferred honoring the two exceptional men the holiday was initially built around, Washington and Lincoln), we have this little gem from CampusReform.org, who gives us these lovely pieces out of a textbook being used by the University of South Carolina, in a class called “Introduction to Social Work Profession and Social Welfare.”  The textbook decries President Ronald Reagan as a sexist who “failed to promote women to positions of power during his presidency.”

As Caleb Bonham, editor-in-chief of CampusReform.org, notes:

The excerpts sent to Campus Reform make no mention of Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female Supreme Court Justice; his appointment of the first female U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick; Elizabeth Dole, the first female appointed to Secretary of the Department of Transportation; or that over 1,400 women were chosen by Reagan to fill powerful, policy-making positions.

Other excerpts from the same textbook go on to describe conservatives in general terms as people who “oppose change” and “have a pessimistic view of human nature,” which then implies that because conservatives have such a dismal view of humanity, conservatives therefore see no point to giving charity to people who are “corrupt” and should be taking care of themselves.

While many studies differ on who gives to charity more, conservatives or liberals, the general view is that conservatives give more to religious or faith-based charities, while liberals give to secular charities.  Even the Washington Post, back in 2012, conceded that the monetary amount is equivalent between the two groups.  So much for that eternal pessimism dampening that charitable giving, huh?

The textbook also contains such wonderful little nuggets about how the wealthy prefer to have a “poor social class” available to do menial work, because the wealthy like to look down on the little people.  Why is this relevant in a textbook about social work and social welfare?  Isn’t the point of social work to help the poor and give them a hand up, and eventually make them wealthy?  Silly me.  I forgot that this is a college course, and social work is now all about proclaiming the virtues of the poor while dissing the wealthy, and demanding lots of government money.

Incidentally, this textbook, Brooks/Cole Empowerment Series: Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives, 4th Edition, (more excerpts can be seen here through a Google Books preview) is listed with the “college bookstore wholesale price” of only $149.50.  Which leads me to ask, who exactly is getting the money from the sale of this textbook?  Because surely, no one should be getting wealthy off it.  That would be wrong.  Why is this textbook not sold at a price that even a poor college student could afford?