Crazy College Courses and the Religion of Sex

Just when you thought the state of higher education couldn’t get any lower, the Young America’s Foundation surveyed fifty major colleges to see what courses they are offering as legitimate “higher education” in the 2017-18 academic year. As is evident from a reading of the complete survey, the new religion in America— “the religion of sex”— has taken over part of the academy and made it its temple. Here’s just a small sampling of the crazy courses now being offered:

Crazy College Courses Sex Religion

Up at Northwestern University there’s a course that typifies many being offered at campuses all over the country. It’s called Beyond the Binary: Transgender and Race.Apparently, after thousands of years of human civilization and scientific advancement, college professors have abandoned biology and just discovered that gender and race have no scientific basis. They’re teaching all this can be changed on a whim. And this is from the crowd who just ten minutes ago were asserting that sexual feelings are fixed just as race is, because “we’re born this way.”

True to the current fad, Medieval Sexuality, also offered at Northwestern, investigates the “fluidity of sex and gender roles in an age before ‘sexual orientation’; impact of and resistance to Christian theology’s negative assessment of sexuality; the cult of chastity.” Well, who could disagree with that? I mean, if only people would be less chaste in our society, then things would really get better. Right?

Indiana University is offering Topics In Gender Studies (We’re All A Little Crazy: Gender, Madness, & Popular Culture). (I wish I could tell you what this college course is about. Well, no, I don’t. The description is too profane to print.)

Not to be outclassed by Indiana, the University of Michigan is finally offering Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music. Parents have been demanding it for years! They’re also offering Drag in America (which is now a laudable way to dress up a degree).

Amherst College has constructed The Cross-Cultural Construction of Gender. Apparently this comes without correction from the biology department.

Wellesley College offers the ever-necessary Rainbow Cowboys (and Girls): Gender, Race, Class, and Sexuality in Westerns. A course like that might even earn a blush from Wellesley alum Hillary Clinton as she rides out of town.

Over at Swarthmore College you can participate in Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology. “Key themes include: gender; embodiment; masculinity; liberation; sexuality; feminist and queer theory.” If that’s not “queer” enough for you, don’t miss Queering the Bible. Its stated goal? By reading the Bible with the methods of queer and trans* theoretical approaches, this class destabilizes long held assumptions about what the bible – and religion – says about gender and sexuality.”

The University of Maryland offers Homophobia in the U.S. Society in the New Millennium. The stated goal is not to educate, but to activate students to take up a political crusade. Its purpose is to “focus on students’ powers and responsibilities within struggles to end discrimination based on sexuality.”

Davidson College offers Oppression & Education (which ironically is not a commentary on higher education). They also list Marriage in the Age of Trumpwhich has nothing to do with the kind of marriage that has perpetuated and stabilized civilization since, well, it created civilization. Instead the course examines “meanings of marriage for same-sex couples, including marriage as material right, marriage as protest, and marriage as validation.”

At the University of Georgia you’ll be asked to swallow Gendered Politics of Food and adopt a completely new method of learning by taking Feminist Research Methods.

At Ole Miss, there’s this golden oldie: Sex, Gender and the Bible. Now, there’s an obvious staple of higher learning for you!(Grandma, don’t you remember taking that course while Grandpa was overseas saving civilization from the Nazis?)

Down in Sweet Home Alabama, the University of Alabama has a course called Contemporary In(queer)ies. It’s about as bad as their football team is goodThe allegedly more conservative Texas A&M calls a similar course Alternative Genders (whoop, whoop).

At University of Kentucky you can take — and I’m not making this up — Vampires: Evolution of a Sexy Monster. This course answers the following questions: What is a vampire? Where do they come from? Why do we have an obsession with the walking dead, especially with fanged monsters?” (What employer couldn’t use a graduate with the answers to those puzzling questions?)

DePaul University answers another question puzzling society with Are We Still Fabulous?: Queer Identity in Contemporary Drama. Meanwhile, over at Providence College students with less pigmentation in their skin will learn that they are guilty for any perceived social inequality, when they take The Power of Whiteness.

The Ivy League’s Brown University is apparently proud to offer Prostitutes, Mothers, + Midwives: Women in Pre-modern Europe and North America. Or a Brown student could take Feminist Theory for a Heated Planetwhich, according to the description, has something to do with “the eruption of Gaia.”

Columbia University advocates personal and political action with its course on Queer Practice, That’s only to be outdone by another course at Cornell University called Nightlife, which appears to study what might or should happen at gay nightclubs.

Dartmouth is teaching The United States of Queer as well as Radical Sexuality: Of Color, Wildness and Fabulosity. (In other news, leftist sociologists remain baffled by the current wave of sexual harassment charges. What could possibly give sexual deviants justification to radically and wildly ignore traditional sexual boundaries?)

The “Women’s Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department” at Yale University is peddling Globalizing Gender and Sexuality. And the once great Harvard University (founded by John Harvard to train pastors) now offers such biblically edifying courses as Gender, Religion and Scripture and Leaning In, Hooking Up. The course will “critique ideological formations of gender, particularly as bounded by race, class, and sexuality.” Indeed, it offers “new models for sexuality” that, apparently, were beyond the provincial mind of Jesus.

And that’s only a small sample of what’s being taught at just fifty schools; it’s actually worse and more widespread than that.

The Religion of Sex

Do you think these courses sound like elements of a quality education or more like the weekly worship services of the religion of sex? Sure, they have the ruse of education. But they are really promoting a dogmatic secularism with a kind of religious fervor intent on urging students to abandon reality and live in their own sexual fantasy world.

And the culture they help justify demands that the rest of us live in their sexual fantasy world too. Their worshippers will preach “inclusion, tolerance and diversity.” But if you fail to celebrate their fantasy they’ll immediately brand you a heretic and exclude you for being “intolerant” enough to believe that there actually is a reality outside of your mind.

While conservatives believe in changing their behavior to fit reality, today’s new liberals seem hell-bent on changing reality to fit their behavior. That will not end well for them personally or our country.

The professors who teach these courses may have the best of intentions. They may think that what they are doing is right and true (all the while declaring that truth and gender are relative). But you don’t have to support their dogmatic delusions. Parents and alumni: If you love your kids (and civilization) more than your football and basketball tickets, then stop giving these schools your children and your money.



Free Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
31 replies
  1. Andy Ryan says:

    “While conservatives believe in…”
    Sure, tell us more about sexual morality, while you enthusiastically support politicians who are credibly accused by multiple women of sexual assault and pedophilia. Sorry Frank, you made your choice – Conservatives are the party of Trump and Roy Moore now.

    • Buddy says:

      And you believe everything you hear? At least one of the women who accused Moore admitted she wrote “his message” in her own yearbook. Maybe we should wait for the truth before we “hang” anyone?

      • KR says:

        She admitted no such thing. What she stated was that she added a note that the person who wrote the message was the assistant DA. This was confirmed in a report issued by Arthur T. Anthony, a court-certified document examiner in Georgia. He compared the writing in the yearbook with known samples of Moore’s handwriting and concluded that all the samples were written by the same person.
        Moore has threatened to sue the Washington Post over the accusations of sexual misconduct, which I guess would give him an opportunity to challenge this evidence in court. So far, no such lawsuit has materialized. Gee, I wonder why. Could it have something to do with Moore not wanting these women testifying about his behaviour in front of a judge? Let’s not forget all the corroborating witnesses like Moore’s former colleagues at the DA’s office, former police officers and mall employees that have all confirmed that Moore’s obsession with teenage girls was well-known at the time.
        Moore himself has stated that he never dated any girl without the consent of her mother. Why exactly would a grown man need the consent of his date’s mother? Moore has also stated that he first got interested in his future wife at a dance recital – when she was 15.

    • Michele Jones says:

      What? Do your homework. It’s totally unfair to pop off and make such statements. The mainstream media has been so unfair with the crazy stories about Roy Moore. Dig in and check out a variety of news organizations to see the claims by these women and what they amounted to. As a woman, I know women can lie. It seems too many people, especially men, are too quick to side with a crying, pathetic sounding woman when she accuses a man of sexual misconduct or anything else. Tears don’t equate honesty. And there’s no evidence to back all this up. Besides, just because many conservatives supported Trump and Moore, it doesn’t mean that they fully support all their stances or their character traits or things they have done or said in the past. Sometimes we have to vote for someone or something that’s not as bad as the alternative. That was a totally unfair attack on Frank and other conservatives.

      • Andy Ryan says:

        Michelle, you’re saying that ALL the women were lying about Roy Moore, while Roy Moore was telling the truth. This despite the fact that Roy Moore was removed from the bench TWICE for lying, one of those times by a panel of his peer judges. And now he refuses to concede that he lost the election. This tells you a lot about his credibility. And yes, I’ve done my homework – none of the accusations levelled against the women amounted to anything than clutching at straws and outright lies.
        “Sometimes we have to vote for someone or something that’s not as bad as the alternative.”
        If that makes you feel better about defending a child molester, go ahead.

  2. Andy Ryan says:

    “What could possibly give sexual deviants justification to radically and wildly ignore traditional sexual boundaries?)”
    According to Kellyanne Conway, one justification is ‘We need the votes’. Funnily enough, Conservatives promised us that allowing gay marriage would lead to acceptance of pedophilia. And just a few years later, sure enough, they endorsed Roy Moore. Not the endorsement from Trump is that much of surprise after he made jokes about millionaire yacht orgies to a gathering of boy scouts.
    Maybe you should run your own course explaining how Conservatives can blame
    all this on gays and feminists.

  3. Frank Turek says:

    Andy, None of my candidates were in the election. But the election has nothing to do with this column. If you want to contend that these courses are worthy of higher education, please make your case.

    I hope things are well for you in the UK. Enjoyed my time in London in June. Fabulous city (and it happened to be sunny!). Blessings this Christmas.

    • James Archbold says:

      We had a terrorist Incident in London in June..while you were here .Glad you had a nice time though and it was sunny but we wept.. ‘Reasons Greetings ‘to you and the family.

  4. Andy Ryan says:

    Frank, you compared Conservative and liberal attitudes in your column, so I believe the leading Conservative politician and those he stumps for are relevant. I’ve not seen you disown Trump – in fact you’ve seemed pretty supportive. Like it or not, thrice married ‘I just kiss them’ Trump is now the Conservative party. Painting liberals as the sexual degenerates doesn’t work any more. If it did a year ago, it certainly doesn’t after the GOP went all in for Moore in Alabama.
    Glad you enjoyed London – I was right in the centre there myself last week, now back in the Midlands. Things are good here, if rushed what with Christmas preparations!

    • Frank Turek says:

      Andy, if you can find any of these courses taught at schools like Southern Evangelical Bible College or Hillsdale College, then I’ll agree to moral equivalence between conservatives and liberals. It’s not the conservative schools teaching this stuff, but liberal faculty in the liberal american university system. Do you really think that most of these courses are worthy of higher education?

      • jcb says:

        Frank, it seems pretty hard to discern the value of those courses from the meager amount of information we are given about them. I agree though that some of the courses appear to be unworthy of higher education.
        Oddly, if theists hadn’t been discriminating against gays for so long, fewer of these classes would probably be offered or needed.
        But I think Andy is right: When you write: “What could possibly give sexual deviants justification to radically and wildly ignore traditional sexual boundaries?”, you demonstrate why some of these courses are important. Your false view that people with non-traditional sexual practices are unjustified in engaging in them is often why such courses are offered: to educate people about false views such as that one (that non-traditional sexual practices such as homosexuality are unjustified.)

  5. K. D. Dowdall says:

    I do not question what God has made. If you believe in God, there is a reason for everything. These courses have crazy names to encourage the students of today to take these courses, which is, by the way, to understand human sexuality, so students born with mixed gender identities won’t be bullied, degraded, and even physically hurt by young people who have been born with gender agreement with their physicality. There have always been human beings born with mixed gender identities. Many babies are born with indiscriminate genitalia. What would you call them? Freaks of nature? No, they are human beings born that way, a part of God’s design.
    Religion has always had two heads – one that preached love and the other that preached hate, fear of others that are difference or don’t believe as they do. God knows that religions of every persuasion have done unspeakable horrors to other human beings by judging others. Where is the understanding, the compassion, the love for children born different or born as they were created by God? Even in the non-human mammals (we are mammals also) there is wide spread mixed genders – male animals behaving has female and females behaving as males as we are animals – human animals.

    Ask yourself why men are born with nipples, because biologically, there is no difference in an ovum at conception, we are both male and female until genetics takes over with chromosomes within our DNA that will decide our nature and that happens late in the development of an infant that becomes whatever God has provided.
    That is the purpose of the sexuality courses to encourage understanding of God’s design of human beings. Who are you to naysay God?
    Karen DeMers Dowdall, PhD, BSN, MSN, RN, clinical researcher

    • Frank Turek says:

      Thanks for your insights and expertise Karen. There’s no question, as you say, that a very small percentage of people are born intersexed. And everyone regardless of their sexual condition is made in the image of God and deserving of respect. But do you really think that the only purpose of all or most of these courses listed above is teach people that the intersexed should not be treated badly? That could and should be done in biology or ethics courses which none of these are.

      Speaking of naysaying God, many of these courses are overt attempts, as their descriptions reveal, to urge students to break natural law and religious moral boundaries regarding sexual behavior. They are celebrations of the sexual revolution. Now you may not have a problem with that, but to say they are just attempts at urging respect for intersexed people doesn’t fit with the stated course content.

      Nevertheless, I agree with you if any of these courses teach that the intersexed should not be shamed, that would be one positive to pull out of the many harmful errors being taught.

    • jcb says:

      Your reply doesn’t sound very scientific when you say “I do not question what God has made”. One, you should have lots of questions. Two, we don’t know that any god exists.
      No, it doesn’t follow that if you believe in X, then there is indeed a reason for everything. Perhaps you meant to say “if you believe in God, then ‘You Believe’ there is a reason for everything”.
      Yes humans are human beings. No, they are not “part of God’s design”.
      Yes religion often preaches hate while also preaching love (and often claiming that hateful acts are indeed loving acts).
      No sexuality course helps us understand God’s design, but yes, some courses educate about the nature of human beings.
      No one can “naysay god” in the sense that there is no god. Anyone can deny god. And finally, the evidence shows that we should deny the existence of an all perfect being.

      • Andrew Black says:

        What evidence? Your arguing against God, because you believe you have him dissproved. As mentions the fact that science actually proves God. Now if you look at the scientific “evidence” that dissproves God it’s actually pretty shaky. The theory of evolution is just that. It’s a theory, not taken for certainty. In recent days more and more of the scientific community are actually starting to find the theory of evolution to be invalid. I encourage you to examine the evidence for the Bible as well before you make a conclusive statement. And God bless you! Hey

        • Andy Ryan says:

          “It’s a theory, not taken for certainty”
          With respect Andrew, you don’t know what ‘theory’ means in the scientific context. It doesn’t mean ‘guess’ or ‘thing we’re not sure about yet’. A theory in science is one of the highest levels – higher than laws. See also number theory and the theory of relativity. Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

        • jcb says:

          I am arguing against various ideas. God doesn’t exist. I’m not “arguing against god”. Yes, the evidence we have “disproves” (or fails to prove) that a perfect in all ways being exists. Science does not prove that god exists, despite what claims. (Feel free to make the case here). The evidence that “proves” god exists is rather “shaky” (but again, feel free to show that it is “solid” rather than “shaky”).
          You don’t seem to address any particular thing I said above. Rather, you simply seem to have replied saying, “I disagree, and others do as well”. That is true, but doesn’t help add anything to this conversation, nor does it show that anything I’ve said above is false.

  6. TGM says:

    Welcome back to the conversation Frank. Earlier in the comments you asked “Do you really think that most of these courses are worthy of higher education?” My answer would be that I don’t know. I’m not inclined to judge the merits of a course based on its title and summary as you and the Young America’s Foundation have done. Their quoted methodology was to survey course catalogs. Nowhere did they interview any of the instructors or administrators, nor did they read a course syllabus or check a course reading list. Their 62 page report would not be thesis-worthy at any of the institutions they surveyed.
    But the worthiness is in the pudding not the skin. I’ll go even farther and paraphrase Roger Ebert in saying that the quality of these courses is not determined by what they are about, but rather how they are about what they are about. The classes might be quite good and insightful. And they might even be a little less “subversive” than you fear. Or they could be terrible. But I find it unworthy to diminish attempts to explore the deeper workings of humanity. Subject matter experts have decided that there is value and an audience for each of these programs.
    Incidentally, I would conjecture that most of these courses are electives, seminars or colloquia and are not part of any general degree requirement. So, it’s not as if anyone is being forced to talk about queer vampires or somesuch.

  7. Adi says:


    Honestly, this is nothing new. This post-modern philosophy hasn’t really taken over just a part of Academia, but really has taken over all of it. Luckily there is an international counter-movement pushing back and calling-out the bull dung like it is. I’m glad you’re joining the fight!

    Some great names in Academia fighting back today:
    – Dr. Jordan Peterson
    – Sir Roger Scruton
    – Jonathan Haidt

  8. Susan says:

    There is some truth to this statement:
    While conservatives believe in changing their behavior to fit reality, today’s new liberals seem hell-bent on changing reality to fit their behavior. That will not end well for them personally or our country.

    KInsey and Mead’s sex research was flawed and it seems their personal ideas colored their conclusions and research findings.

    Some researchers say homosexuality is based on a brain change in utero caused by an oversecretion of hormones to the fetus during pregnancy so yes some gays are born gay like they claim though there are some outliers who have bad relationships with the opposite sex who just get confused about their sexual identity and decide to turn gay after experiencing various social pressures.

    More people should watch Helen Fisher’s TED video on the brain in love.

    In my opinion Fisher’s research validates what Genesis 2 says about pair bonding.

    The western world today doesn’t seem to be interested in pair bonding today though. How does a spoiled me generation produce enough compromises to let pair bonding survive? Pair bonding is important because it raises offspring and provides role models to children.

    It’s really a shame the sex researchers got out of the box ahead of the scientists because the press and media ran with the bad research triggering a sex revolution in Europe that doesn’t match up with the brain science results people are getting today.

    In other words pseudoscientific ideas are ruling in the liberal civil rights media circus that we have today.

    And it is so hard to correct so many biological errors now that the cart is firmly in front of the horse.

    • TGM says:

      “There is some truth to this statement:
      ‘While conservatives believe in changing their behavior to fit reality, today’s new liberals seem hell-bent on changing reality to fit their behavior.'”
      I can see why you think so. But one can equally say that conservatives misjudge reality. They have tunnel vision. There is much more nuance, opportunity, and malleability in life than conservatives think and liberals are better at recognizing and adapting to this.
      One has to wonder what conservatives think they are doing. To conserve is to protect, to seek to maintain the current status, to respect precedent. But modern American conservatism is boldly trying to take us back to the past – 250+ years in some cases. This is not conservative – this is highly progressive, even revolutionary. True conservatism would be to keep the American embassy in Tel Aviv. It would be to preserve Alaskan territory from drilling and protecting Native American lands in the Midwest. And it would especially not be about passing sweeping tax reform in a bloody hurry.
      There is a place for conservatism in the world. A good and necessary one. Its goal should be to moderate and check the inevitable growth and changes in society, to attenuate the impact of bold new ideas and keep society stable. Whatever modern conservatism is, it is not this.

      • Susan says:

        You could be partially right about that but the liberals today are not the ones of the past either.

        if there is one thing I learned from atheists is there is a big difference between hard science and pseudoscience and right now the liberals are letting the pseudo scientists blur the scientific lines of sexual identity as if everything was personal choice but it isn’t. A person’s gender is set before he is born.

        • jcb says:

          A person’s biology is set (at birth). What one decides to do with that biology (after birth) is not. That’s the sense in which “everything” (or rather, many things) are indeed a personal choice, such as whether you want to wear dresses, prefer to be called He or She, etc. Those who think that transgenderism is about denying the fact of your original biology don’t understand transgenderism. If someone born with a penis decides/desires to wear a dress, be called Sheila, or get a sex change operation, they have done nothing wrong/immoral/unloving. The theistic/conservative uproar is over nothing, it seems.

          • Susan says:

            I really wasn’t commenting on transgender issues or morality above.

            I was commenting on how flawed research has colored public perception on sexual topics.

            The Bible says not to judge unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 5 but it never says a Christian shouldn’t use discernment and separate from this evil world when it spins out of control.

            Unfortunately, the world we live in today seems to be incapable of respecting traditional social boundaries between people and that is why we
            have people disputing their rights all the time.

            So now we live in a world where the ability to raise children is being increasingly impacted so minority groups in society can be free to do whatever they want to do.

            Christians don’t need to argue or engage the world
            any more at all it seems.

            All we need to do is be Christians and separate. Christians are already taking their kids back from the public school systems to home school them.

            Separate. Stop letting the world raise our kids and let a few decades go by.

            Then the world will be knocking on Christian doors trying to get in after they see what they have versus what we have.

            We really don’t have to compromise with evil as Christians. Does God ever tell us to marginalize personal holiness to accommodate this evil world and it’s ways?

            No He says to follow His and He never said it would be easy but then the worthwhile things are usually not easily obtained.

            Let the old evil world go
            “experiment” and get it’s results but they might not like them when they get them.

            God tells his people to set a standard for others to observe. But He never told us to control evil doers, fools, the rebellious or stubborn. How could people tell the difference between Christians and non-Christians if we tried to control non-Christians.

            Self control is invaluable but it is hard to learn in this world.

            Fortunately, for some God is still teaching it to people.

            It’s usually the people who lack self control or are ignorant of it’s value who reclassify it as

        • Andy Ryan says:

          “A person’s gender is set before he is born”
          A transgender person might well agree with you. But they may disagree with you on what that gender is.

  9. Aleksey Chernyakhovskiy says:

    Most schools nowadays are trying to spread the message of “love” and in their eyes that equates to acceptance. I think the real issue these days is the difference in how people percieve love and what Christians should really be doing to tackle the issue. It’s easy to point out plenty of issues but I don’t see anyone coming up with a reasonable solution.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *