Textbook: Reagan was sexist, conservatives think people are evil and lazy
A textbook used in several University of South Carolina classes describes former President Ronald Reagan as an avowed sexist who refused to appoint women to government positions because he thought they belonged in the kitchen and bedroom.
In general, conservatives are pessimists who oppose charity and believe people are evil and lazy, according to the textbook.
The author of the textbook is Karen Kirst-Ashman. Her book, “Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare,” was used in an introductory social work class at USC.
The book’s thinly-veiled anti-conservative bias shocked Anna Chapman, a USC sophomore who was assigned to read it.
“I can not even tell you how angry I was when I read that,” she said in a statement to Campus Reform. “This is really outrageous, it’s so in your face and people need to know about it.”
Some highlights: A section titled “Conservative Extremes in the 1980s and Early 1990s,” discusses Reagan’s apparent sexism.
“He ascribed to women primarily ‘domestic functions’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency,” according to the textbook.
The passage runs counter to actual history; Reagan is known for appointing Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female Supreme Court Justice, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, the first female U.S. representative to the United Nations.
The textbook’s anti-Reagan screed also claims that his policies resulted in mass poverty and homelessness.
The broader conservative philosophy fared no better in the rest of the textbook. Conservatives take a “pessimistic view of human nature,” according to Kirk-Ashman, and believe that people are “corrupt, self-centered, lazy, and incapable of true charity.”
The remark about charity rings especially false, since conservatives generally support and encourage voluntary charity. Some studies have even suggested that conservative Americans are actually more likely to donate to charity than liberal Americans.
The textbook also makes the flat assertion that if the government gives less money to poor people, there will be more poor people.