Sunday, September 11, 2011

REA$ON is at it again (by CCM)

I just received this email below, which was sent to many media outlets as well as Paul Ryan (R - US Congress) and Ron Johnson (R - US Senator).  My reply follows (and yes, I replied to all). 


Hello media outlets, professors, organization leaders, politicians and other interested parties.

Attached is an informational press release concerning a movie showing that will presented at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater on Wednesday and Thursday, October 5th and 6th, 2010. The fore mentioned movie is "Iranium: The Movie." This showing is hosted by REA$ON: Objectivist Thought in Whitewater. Objectivism is the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand, author of he best-selling novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The philosophy of Objectivism promotes an ethical rational egoism rather than the more universally accepted theory of altruism. Please read the attached press release. Also attached is a poster and an informational handout.

I encourage teachers to handout the informational handout and I am more than welcome to join a class to introduce the movie and to print the poster to hang up in your office etc. I encourage  Organizations to handout the informational handout and once again I am more than welcome to join a meeting to introduce the movie.

For more information on the event, contact me at If you are interested in an official flyer also contact the previous email. For more information on Ayn Rand's Philosophy on Objectivism, visit

Jonathan Bomberg
President and Founder of Rea$on (Objectivist Thought in Whitewater)

My response:

Dear Jonathan,

I apologize for replying in this manner, but I am wondering why you find this movie appropriate for me (or you) to promote in my classes?  I also wonder why I should take Rand's philosophy seriously.

FIRST POINT.  Iranium was produced by the Clarion Fund in NYC, which has strong Zionist overtones.  The film itself leaves out much of the history of US-Iran relations that is important for understanding the current state of affairs between the two countries.  The film also ignores that many Iranian reformists under President Mohammad Khatami reached out to the US after 9/11.  While Iranium does not say that the US should take military action against Iran so that we beat them to a hypothetical punch, it is the overwhelming feeling provoked by the end of the movie.  My suggestion is that the movie Showdown with Iran is a much better film that is produced by PBS Frontline, contains a better historical sketch, and includes apt cautions about the dangers of military action.  The aim is balance, especially with such an important, powder keg issue.

SECOND POINT.  Rand's philosophy tells me that I should take a resolutely "selfish" view of the world.  "Selfishness" for Rand does not mean crude hedonism (which makes me question why there is a dollar-sign in "Rea$on").  Rather she means rational egoism as you say.  But that egoism radically neglects social responsibility in favor of individual survival.  The capitalist is heralded over all else no matter who might suffer because of his/her efforts; the producer is all that matters and should be exalted above all else.  Rand's philosophy smells of social darwinism, a philosophy we should not take seriously after we have learned about the philosophical, historical, social, and economic complexities surrounding the current state of our country.  Rand's philosophy has major problems it cannot overcome.

So I ask, why should I promote this movie in particular to my class, and why should I promote your student organization in particular to my class?


Chris Calvert-Minor, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Philosophy & Religious Studies
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater


  1. I could see suggesting that students possibly go to a Rea$on meeting or open discussion event where students and members of the public could engage with Rea$on members (therefore, probably not this film) if you were teaching a 20th century philosophy course that covered objectivism...after making it clear that you were not necessarily promoting the group's philosophy and that many contemporary philosophers and scholars (including yourself) see real problems with applying Rand's philosophies to current American society.

    (As part of a political organization on campus, albeit one focused on much different ideals than Rea$on, I sometimes talked to professors who taught material relevant to said group to mention our events in class as a way for students to discuss their perspectives on these issues in a space outside of the classroom.)

  2. Yes. Definitely. If there was a specific request to speak to my 20th Century Philosophy class because I was covering Rand, that would have been appropriate. Alas, the request was not that nuanced, nevermind that I do not do Rand because there are so many more important philosophers. This was Bomberg's second blanket request. I make it on the list because I am in the Philosophy Department.

    The reason for my response to Bomberg and the rest, however, was so that others can see the potential dangers of the film and student org.

  3. I know there is a major issue at hand here, but I'm not even sure where to BEGIN on that.... So I'll say this - one thing that really bothered me about Bomberg's e-mail here is how he said "I am more than welcome..." not once, but twice. What's up with that? He's welcoming himself into your class? Where are his business communication skills?

  4. Lets go after Penguin Group and Apple Computers too.

    Penguin Group will launch a new iPad app of Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel, “Atlas Shrugged,” combining the unabridged text and rarely seen photos from Ayn Rand’s archives.

    The app, which will be made available on iTunes starting today, will include videos and audio lectures given by Rand, original manuscript notes, an illustrated timeline of Rand’s life, and other features.

    Ponder these words:

    “University study must again become a risk, not a refuge for the cowardly. Whoever does not survive the battle, lies where he falls. The new courage must accustom itself to steadfastness, for the battle for the institutions where our leaders are educated will continue for a long time. It will be fought out of the strengths of the new Reich that Chancellor Hitler will bring to reality. A hard race with no thought of self must fight this battle, a race that lives from constant testing and that remains directed toward the goal to which it has committed itself. It is a battle to determine who shall be the teachers and leaders at the university.”

    From an address by the Nazi Martin Heidegger who was a dues paying member of the Nazi Party from 1933 to 1945. His classic work, Being and Time is still taught in many philosophy classes. This fascist asshole is being taught in philosophy classes. We do not stop reading and teaching the work of this fascist asshole because he was a Nazi.

    My advice is to read em all and then make up your own mind!

  5. Anon 2:19, my my. Of course we do not stop reading Heidegger "because" he was a Nazi. That would be an ad hominem fallacy since Being and Time is not Nazi philosophy. One must judge a body of work based on the merit of the work. And Heidegger's Being and Time is mature and first-rate, very much worthy of the philosophy classroom.

    In contrast, Rand's philosophy is sophomoric at best. Like I said in my email response, her philosophy grossly ignores the philosophical, social, historical, and economic complexities surrounding our country. Not "every" philosophy is worthy of study (as you seem to suggest). There is only so much time we have in a semester, and I choose to spend it wisely.

    But all of this is slightly missing the original point. The issue is not really about whether we should teach Rand in the classroom, but whether I would want to allow a spokesperson for objectivism in my classroom to promote the student group REA$ON. And that is different than the line of thought you started. I have no problem allowing a general philosophy student organization to say something to my classes. Presumably, there wouldn't be any one philosophical perspective pushed. But REA$ON is quasi-proselytizing, pushing Objectivism with religious fervor. And that is not something I endorse in my classroom.

  6. Then the solution to the issue is easy. Don't let them speak or show the film in your classroom. However, you responded "you want others to see the potential danger of this film and the student org." So the message here is to be tolerant of student organizations except REA$ON. They are pushing dangerous ideas and must be stopped. They have the right to push Objectivism on campus even with religious fervor. You have the right to deny their spokesperson entry in to your classroom.

  7. Yes, I want others to see the potential dangers of the film and the student org. I am trying to raise some awareness of some of the potential complications here - the kinds of complications REA$ON will not mention. I could have simply said nothing and deny the film and group entry into my classroom, but I also chose to give a counterpoint. Are you saying that I should not have given any counterpoint?

    Regardless [and so that it is clear] I have not said nor will I say that the REA$ON group should be disallowed on campus. They have a right to their views just as everyone else does. But if I am going to be included on mass emails like the one REA$ON sent, I just might express my views too ;)

  8. You may as well have called for the expulsion of this student organization. You tarred and feathered them by calling them potentially dangerous. So what has this student org done that you find potential dangerous? Send out a few broadcast emails about Rand related activities?
    Next, you want others to see the potential danger of this film and the student organization WITHOUT even viewing the film or listening to any of the members of REA$ON.

    Based on your comments, you must have viewed the film and made up your own mind about its merits.

    From your post "Iranium was produced by the Clarion Fund in NYC, which has strong Zionist overtones. The film itself leaves out much of the history of US-Iran relations that is important for understanding the current state of affairs between the two countries. The film also ignores that many Iranian reformists under President Mohammad Khatami reached out to the US after 9/11."

    Lets others do the same.

  9. Anon 12:24, are you implying that I am preventing others from doing the same? People can watch whatever they like. How do my comments impede that?

    You also seem to be offended that I expressed complications. May I ask why? By the very same maneuver you are using against me (i.e., people can express and view what they want), I could sling-shot that back to you. Why do you find my expressions particularly troublesome?

    Are you willing to say that I should have just shut-up? That I should have censored myself?

  10. LOL, I am not offended that you expressed your point of view, that is your right. I question your need to tar and feather this particular student organization with the label of being potentially dangerous. Outside of that, you are free to criticize REA$ON and Rand, even to continue calling them potentially dangerous. I fail to find anything even remotely dangerous about this particular student organization. I assume that this organization has been approved by the university.

  11. Well, as I mentioned before, I addressed this group because they addressed me first. Remember that I "replied" to the original email. I'm not singling them out. And you are making way too much of this "dangerous" word. The brunt of my critique of the group is that objectivism is "sophomoric." You seem to have latched onto the one time I said that the group has potential dangers, but that predicate was more linked with the film than the group.

    I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

  12. Yes, of course I am making too much of the dangerous word, because I do not believe it was fair to classify this particular student org, to use your own words, as potentially dangerous, but now that I have learned that you really did not mean what you posted, I can end this debate. Just to show that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, here are your words again.

    "Yes, I want others to see the potential dangers of the film and the student org"

    But its all good.

  13. Regarding Iranium, after reading the posts I was curious about this film so I decided to watch it and make up my own mind.

    This film is a piece of propaganda bullshit.

    First, the film begins with a lightweight discussion about the Shah of Iran, a US puppet, brought to power by the CIA but they omitted any discussion of the CIA sponsored overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister Dr. Mossadegh, removed because of his desire to nationalized Iranian oil and end the rape of the country's resources by the Brits. (there is an interesting history behind Churchill, Aramco and Iranian oil interests.)

    Second, there is no serious discussion of the Shah's brutal secret police, Savak, and the thousands of Iranians tortured and murdered by these CIA trained thugs. (the downfall of the Shah moved the US and CIA to coddle another Middle Eastern thug, Saddam Hussein)

    If I had any second thoughts about the educational value of this film, they were removed when I saw that they used John Bolton, former UN Ambassador and neocon from the Bush administration, and Bernard Lewis, as members of their expert core of commentators.

    If your recall, Bolton was one of the leading voice calling for the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Iran. Bernard Lewis is a respectable scholar but somewhere along the way he got fucked up and became closely aligned with the neocons. He promoted the invasion of Iraq, and said that his good chum, Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted fraudster and CIA stooge, could become the Iraqi version of Ataturk. Chalabi got a ton of money from the CIA but was marginalized in Iraq.

    This poorly made film is nothing more than the latest piece of anti Iranian propaganda. If she were still alive, Ayn Rand would probably rejected it.

  14. Anon 4:51 -
    There are potential dangers of the film and the student org. The potential danger is that it is a one-sided group pushing one-sided ideas, and clearly through a one-sided film. This organization in my eyes is slightly different than others because it is not opening students up to a "new" and "liberated" perspective in light of other perspectives that already exist (like some feminist orgs might be doing, for example). Rather, it is throwing a sheet over the eyes of others in the face of controversy. It is purposely trying to guide people into a very sheep-minded, narrow perspective. And that is dangerous.
    However, given this standard of "dangerousness", I would also have to say that some Christian orgs on campus are also dangerous for similar reasons - but I do not see Christian orgs going around mass e-mailing UWW faculty and state senators, asking to promote some Creation-Science movie in the classrooms of say, Biology professors. See the difference?

    Obviously students have a choice in the matters - if they want to join a Christian org, they probably already have some conception of Christianity that they appeal to, or would like to start appealing to, in some way. What REA$SON is doing is attempting to recruit students who might not already have made a choice or formed an opinion on the given matter, so by promoting propaganda films and philosophies such as that of Ayn Rand without really acknowledging other sides, the org is really stepping on thin ice, in my opinion, because there is a fine line between steering students towards an organization based on students' pre-existing interests, ideas, etc, and steering students towards a specific perspective based on nothing in particular (rather than celebrating diverse perspectives when it comes to real-world issues and controversies, thus enlightening students to cultivate a new, "higher" perspective, IN LIGHT of the other perspectives that currently exist).

  15. (Note: I'm the anon at 8:21pm)

    Does anyone else think that it's sort of weird that they've sent the same email to media outlets, state senators, and everyone in the philosophy department? The organizations I was involved with always tried to be more "personal" in how we promoted events--specific press releases to the student newspaper, emails only to relevant departments and community groups, etc. Maybe this is besides the point, but it looks to me like a really shoddy publicity effort.

  16. I feel the need to interject. Hi everyone, I am the infamous Jonathan Bomberg, President and Founder of Rea$on: Objectivist Thought in Whitewater. I subsequently sent a reply to the email received (the full email is posted below) and was never replied back to after some time passed. I will attempt to discuss some of the critiques in broad brush strokes. (1) The purpose of Rea$on is to promote an understanding of Objectivism. We have people in our organization that disagree with most parts of Objectivism. We DISCUSS the philosophy, not preach it. I understand this concern due to the fact that the existence of “Randroids” (followers of Objectivism for irrational reasons) is prevalent in our society. My goal in founding Rea$on was to have a place where individuals can come together and read Rand’s nonfiction followed by a very informal small group discussion. I see us as neither one sided nor “dangerous.” (2) The film was more or less recommended to me. After watching the film I concluded that it would stir conversation and that was my goal. In the email is point out the fact that neither Objectivism nor I endorse the movie’s entirety. (in the email posted below I explain all of this more).

    Thank you

    If there are any more questions for me I encourage you all to email me at

  17. Response to: Calvert-Minor

    Thank you for your response. I do not intend this to be rude to you but apologize if it seems that way. I had a better message complete when my computer crashed and my new version may not appear as clean.

    FIRST POINT ... I have not heard of that other film. And I was already aware of the director and many of the personnel from Iranium. The general purpose of the showing is to stir conversation. Neither Reason nor myself endorse every aspect of this movie. There will be a free book given away to one individual at the first showing that describes in better detail the Objectivist position on, not only Iran, but foreign policy in general.

    SECOND POINT ... I will start by asking what "social responsibly" man has and why? Assuming the capitalist only cares for himself is reducing Objectivism to crude hedonism. Rational egoism does not state do as you feel but rather what is in your rational self interest and who is to say that the value of others cannot be in your self interest? It is only altruism that pins men against other men. Objectivsm does not hold man as a sacrificial animal, neither him to others NOR OTHERS TO HIMSELF. Also Objectivism is by no means a variant of social darwinism. Ayn rand's philosophy does not hold survival of the fittest. Men are not judged by the amount of their intellect but rather the amount of rational effort they perform. They then gain according to that amout of effort. But these are all concepts (i.e. the trader principle and the benevolent view of mankind) of the Objectivist philosophy that goes beyond the narrow concretizations of "Atlas Shrugged" and the like. One must encournter Rand's non fiction essays for these.

    The main reasons that you should support an understand of Objectivism in your class (1) for the same reason you promote an understanding of Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Descartes etc. All of these philosophies have conflicting ideas and premises and therefore some must have "major problems" unless I am mistake and you teach only one philosopher/philosophy then please correct me. (2) because many people have only read certain concretizations of Ayn Rand's philosophy and we provide many nonfiction resources that give the fuller more abstract principles and ideas from her novels through many readings and lectures.

    This semester, Rea$on, is covering two Objectivist non-fictions on Ethics to promote a better understand (due to the general lack of by many critics) of Ayn rand's philosophy beyond the 2-3 novels that everyone has read.
    To many people learn Objectivism second handed or simple form the novels when they need to read the nonfiction.

    You don't have to agree with Objectivism to see the importance of understanding it fully and acurately. For example I disagree with Marx yet I understand that to truly disagree I must know more than what I am told and I must gain knowledge first handed.
    This is why I encourage even those that disagree to come (including yourself).

    Jonathan Bomberg
    President and Founder of Rea$on (Objectivist Thought in Whitewater)

  18. Jonathan, I appreciate your comments here. I did not respond to your email above via email because I didn't want to clutter email inboxes (especially the likes of the politicians and media outlets). You and I have also emailed back and forth before about this stuff.

    Here, I will respond to one thing you say above. You say, "Men are not judged by the amount of their intellect but rather the amount of rational effort they perform." (1) Why? (2) Judged how? In terms of worth? (3) Whose the judge? You? Society? (4) Is this a necessary judgment? (5) How is "rational effort" measured? (6) Do you take into account the social and economic conditions of a person when you measure their rational effort? For example, an American white male plantation owner in the early 1800's would have a much easier time expending whatever effort he wanted in comparison to an American black female slave. I would not judge their worth as humans any differently, but it seems that you might.

    In this regard, while I am not a Kantian, I appreciate his insistence that we treat each person as valuable as an end in itself. Since Rand considered Kant to be one of her enemies, I can only surmise that you disagree with the equal worth of people because they are people. Please show me how I am wrong - or do you agree with Rand that I am trying to destroy humanity as she accused Kant.

  19. Thank you for your reply, Yet if you didn’t want to fill the emails of everyone in my email list, there was no need to press reply all. Or at least delete some of the other names.
    I said "Men are not judged by the amount of their intellect but rather the amount of rational effort they perform." As to show you the difference between social Darwinism and objectivism due to the fact that you tend to blur the line between them quite inappropriately. But I will reply to the above questions. I will only give the immediate response, otherwise the answers will become quite lengthy. If none suffice let me know and I will go into more detail. (1) Objectivism states to judge individuals by the amount that that they accept and perform reason (i.e., amount of rational) because this is directly controllable by volition unlike the amount of intellect and other biological factors. (2) To quote Rand: “Moral judgment must be objective, i.e., based on perceivable, demonstrable facts. A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious. A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious. His psychological problems are his private concern which is not to be paraded in public and not to be made a burden on innocent victims or a hunting ground for poaching psychologizers. Morality demands that one treat and judge men as responsible adults. This means that one grants a man the respect of assuming that he is conscious of what he says and does, and one judges his statements and actions philosophically, i.e., as what they are—not psychologically, i.e., as leads or clues to some secret, hidden, unconscious meaning. One neither speaks nor listens to people in code.”

  20. (3) Who is to judge? Each individual must judge every other individual. You judged me when you read my email to determine whether your time was considered not being wasted to reply. You judge your friends to determine whther you have enough in common that you will enjoy the time spent. These are small judgement, but consider the judgements that one must make as who shall I employ? who shall I date? who shall I invest my money in? These are all JUDGEMENTS that every individual must make. Unlike the social Darwinist that will say judge by nonobjective biological issues, Objectivism, here restating the above, judges individuals by the objective means of their volitional actions and words. (4) Yes it is a necessary judgment. Once again to quote Rand: “There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.” (5) “Rational effort,” or the amount they accept and perform reason, is measured objectively, which means whether or not they are rational enough to perform the position upon which you desire them to be placed. For example, where you buy your bread, you want them to be rational enough to not sell moldy bread. But who you choose as a girlfriend, You judge her by whether she is rational enough, you have things in common, you enjoy the time together etc, etc.. So how you measure it is based on the particular goal of the individual in question. (6) Slavery was irrational, immoral and wrong anyway you look at it. Therefore it would be just and noble to condemn the slave owner because what he is putting in (by choice) is not rational. Slavery is the crudest form of collectivism.

    Finally concerning the Kantian quote. May I ask which of his works that is in? I have most of his books and would like to reread that context. But for now I will state the Objectivism approach. Each and every man is an end in himself. I am my own end, Mike has his life as his own end, and you have your own life as your end. I am assuming this is not the equivalent of what Kant would say, but correct me if I am wrong. The primary reason that Rand condemned Kant was for his idea that individuals have duties that translate into strict dogmas even when irrational and because he attempted to take the altruistic claim that religion pronounces and give in a “earthy” field (yet failed because of his creation of the noumenal realm).

  21. Why have a group centered around one philosophy? Sounds pretty lame to me.

  22. Jonathan, I have to teach in a minute, so I'll throw in four quick things. One, you are equivocating on your use of "judgment." The issue is not judgment as to whether I find someone worthy to hang out with or date. That would be judgment for practical ends and the like. The judgment in question (the sense that I question) is this objective judgment, some kind of absolute/objective judgment as to the worth of a person regardless of their relation to me. I find that quite troublesome for who has the gumption to claim the objective worth of someone?! In your responses here, you blurred the two senses of judgment I mentioned above.

    Two, you didn't answer my point (6).

    Three, see Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. But remember that I said I am not a Kantian in toto.

    Four, you quote Rand an awful lot. I would rather hear what you have to say. At times you sound like some theists who just appeal to the Bible to back up a contentious point.

  23. To Anonymous at 5:58: EVERY organization I know of is “one sided,” the more obvious include: College Democrats, College Republicans, LGBT, the Navigators, the Muslim group, the Campus Crusaders for Christ, Habitats for Humanity etc.

    To CCM: (1) That is a crude use of both judgment and objectivity. Both become irrelevant when not applied to the problem of the entities life. Objectivity by definition is the connection between reality and the individual man in the field of epistemology. Objective in metaphysics simply refers the fact that existence exists independent of anyone’s whim. This is a problem we see with Kant’s phenomenal-noumenal dichotomy. Justice or judgment cannot exist out of context, there is no floating “justice” out there somewhere that exists in and of itself, it exist because man is volitional and has a need for the act of judging others he deals with. Justice is a moral term and therefore requires man, if a volitional being with a rational capacity were to not have come into existence, there would be no such thing as “justice.” Some of this gets into concept-formation and the Objectivist view of epistemology and metaphysics which is covered second semester.

    (2) I apologize for directly answering the question. But I thought the fact that I mentioned to taking into consideration all relative information within context would include those if need be.

    (3) I am glad you are not a Kantian “toto” but you still seem to hold many of its faults including the phenomenal-noumenal dichotomy. But I have read that essay twice before and don’t recall that phrase but I hope my above answer sufficed because you didn’t ask any more questions pertaining to it.

    (4) The reason I quoted Ayn Rand (twice) in the last post was because I am but a student of Objectivism, I do not want to misrepresent a point made eloquently enough in Rand’s lesser read nonfiction. My goal in life is not going into philosophy but rather enology (the study of wine-making). My classes are a majority of sciences rather than philosophy. But having read as much Objectivist literature as I have, I answered four out of six of your questions off the top of my head and the other two with quotes that I knew what they were before replying.

  24. Well Jonathan, you haven't heard of Philosophy Club then. That isn't one-sided.

    Even the ones that are one-sided, we don't see them going around promoting propaganda movies for no reason to people who probably don't want anything to do with the org in the first place. They let the students come to them, for the most part, and even when they do reach out, they have good reasons for doing so.

    In your original e-mail, you should have stated your reasons for why anyone should promote the film and your org, including why you yourself promote them. But you didn't. You had no reasons, ironically considering the name of your org. And even the reasons you came up with after the fact were weak.

    I imagine religious orgs, political orgs, and various social orgs would at least, from some angle, have sensible reasons for promoting a certain film, idea, point of view, etc. But whichever way I look at your org and what it is promoting, I can't understand it. What's the point? What are you trying to accomplish?

    Sure it's interesting to sit around and discuss one kind of philosophy just for the hell of it, and read one author's books, and watch a one-sided film and discuss how it is one-sided (unless those watching aren't informed enough to detect the film's one-sidedness) and you'll have people who disagree with all or part of the philosophy and the given author and whatnot, but to do that for the entire life of the org and have no real defined reasons for doing so.. I just don't get it I guess. The goals of your org are so loosely defined to me...I mean, you might as well start a group that is all about Communist, Perspectivist, Anarchist, or Solipsist thought in Whitewater.

    In fact, I'd really like to see how "UTO=PIA: Communist Thought in Whitewater" would go over, where all we'd do is read Marx and watch movies that talked about the rise and inevitable fall of Capitalism, and we would send e-mails to our government officials and everyone we could to promote the org. And I would tell everyone that I am "more than welcome" to take their time to promote Communist thought.

  25. Anon 9:10, if you want to question the existence of REA$ON as a student org because of its narrow focus, you would have to question most of the student orgs. And I'd venture that that is not what you want to do. One can create a student org for almost anything.

  26. @ CCM - You are right; I wouldn't want to question the existence due to the narrow focus. I can understand the existence of other orgs that have a narrow focus (as most do). What I want to question is the cause. Obviously every org has a cause of some sort, and some causes are more pressing than others (ex: join a knitting org, for which the cause could be to engage in a new hobby or make friends around a common activity, or join a Christian org, for which the cause is to help people who want to get in touch with God; you see the point). An org that has a narrow focus, such as a Christian org or a Republican org or an LGBTQ org, has a cause. Orgs like these have principles, and they promote action based on those principles. But what's the cause of REA$ON? To simply introduce people to Objectivist thought and see how they like it? If this is the case, why such heavy promotion for such a light, obscure cause? Maybe I am talking out of my ass, but whatever. This is where I stand, and these are the questions I want to ask.