This week’s column was difficult to write. Not because of the content, of course - but because of what I had to leave out. I could have written this column about the Women’s Initiative’s new venture, the “Vagina Men” campaign (can I start a “Penis Women” counter-campaign?). But alas, I’ve spilled too much ink whining about feminist follies; this column, instead, will address something of actual consequence.

The contemporary university is defined by its culture, not its curriculum. It is a conscious, deliberate effort to drain students of meaning, self-confidence and intellectual discernment.

Hearing the complaints of college students, one might imagine himself to have wandered into the ghetto. Now, it may be confusing at first glance to think that one of the most expensive universities in the country harbors anyone other than the luckiest 20-year-olds on Earth — or, in their own words, the most “privileged” - but this is silly talk. To understand the collective psyche of university political culture, one has to realize that one walks among the oppressed, the damned, the downtrodden.

What happens when prejudice doesn’t die but merely changes its form?

The burgeoning cliché amongst the younger, ostensibly pro-gay set is that we’re just waiting on the crotchety old homophobes to die off. The upcoming generation supports equality for gays, we’re told. At last, gays and lesbians will be liberated as these citizens change the policies of the government.

Why are we installing a Feminist Resource Center? Oops! I mean — Women’s Resource Center?

In 2006, the New York Times declared that female dominance of men in universities was “the new gender divide.” About 60 percent of U.S. college students are female, and that number is even more staggering at AU, where about two-thirds of our students are women.

Cultural relativism is an objectively incoherent doctrine.

Let me define potentially ambiguous terms at the outset: by “cultural relativism” I mean the idea that it is wrong to cast judgment upon the culture of another nation or ethnicity. By objective, I really do mean objective: it is not up for dispute; the facts demonstrate it in the same way that they demonstrate that AU is located in Washington, D.C.

Is America plagued by an epidemic of hatred? Keep your ear to the ground on college campuses and you might hear the rumbling of angry movements struggling against this epidemic.

Not content with angering senior citizens, Obama has turned his guns on the nation’s kids: it is his proposal that American schools should add time to the school day to “stay competitive” with other countries. Our school system’s calendar, Education Secretary Arne Duncan explains, is “based upon the agrarian economy, and not too many of our kids are working the fields today.”

I don’t drink.

First, a word on terminology: when I mention “drinking” in this column, I mean drinking for the purpose of getting drunk. I don’t mean relaxing with a nice glass of wine or having a beer with friends during the game. I mean getting hammered. Smashed. Shitfaced.

The 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was known for breaking down sentences and everyday terms and finding them to be fairly arbitrary in meaning. His conclusions were often rather shoddy, but his processes were frequently eye-opening. Inspired by some of his methods—and by those of others who would sometimes take a crack at how we use language, including famous anti-statist Herbert Spencer—we will now proceed to unpack the sentence “Universal health care should be a right.”

Let us begin with the term “universal.” What does it mean, legally speaking, for something to be universal? Does it mean that all American citizens should have access to it? Well, why stop there? Is health care a human right or will it merely…