Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Intercollegiate Review

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
You gotta spin it to win it
Icon media.svg
Stop the presses!
We want pictures
of Spider-Man!
Extra! Extra!

The Intercollegiate Review is a website and journal that represents the views of the paleoconservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and as such is a hotbed of wingnut pseudoscience, Christian evangelism, and paranoia. The ISI was founded to combat a perceived liberal bias on colleges by encouraging right-wing students to avoid classes that go against the Bible or that challenge ultraconservative beliefs more generally.[1] It receives funding from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, and other wingnut donors.[2]


The Review, not surprisingly, denies global warming, seeing it as nothing more than an excuse for big government (their favorite snarl word).[3]

The ISI also advocates the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution and promotes homeschooling as a means to combat "liberalism" in public education.[4] ISI has also released some pro-intelligent design books as well.

They play the persecution card against secularists "militant" atheists when called out for their nonsense.

Despite their idiocy they have slightly toned down their rhetoric slightly since 1999, when they released a list of the worst and best books of the century. The worst included the first studies of human sexuality from an objective and scientific point of view (such as the writings of Alfred Kinsey) and John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money for being pro-"big government", and the release of The Pentagon Papers for ruining Richard Nixon's "statesmanlike efforts" to resolve the Vietnam War.[5] The list also played fast-and-loose with the truth, notably calling George Orwell's Homage to Catalonina a reflection of his disillusionment with the "bloody inhumanity of the Left", despite Orwell being a lifelong socialist.

General hackery[edit]

The journal seems to have something of an obsession with political correctness, which can be taken to hilarious degrees. For instance, one columnist listed "Seven Must-See Politically Incorrect Films" that would supposedly make liberals uncomfortable. Curiously, said films included Starship Troopers (which was intended as a satire of gung-ho militarism),[note 1] Unbreakable, The Exorcist (politically incorrect because the family calls on priests to battle a demon, and he also ignores the fact that they do go to a doctor first and it's a last resort), Gran Torino (intentionally politically incorrect, but the protagonist is supposed to be a flawed anti-hero who eventually overcomes his racism), and Blazing Saddles (directed and co-written by Mel Brooks, a liberal Democrat who is mocking stereotypes and racial prejudice, but apparently it's "the perfect film for anyone who thinks the First Amendment is a conservative plot"). Oh, and he also mentions I'm All Right, Jack, because it presents a crazy communist who doesn't want his union to work, which would apparently piss off occupiers.

Perhaps their funniest pet peeve is porn, which they absolutely loathe. One columnist writes "Don't indulge in pornography of any kind, and if you do, repent and turn away. DO tell your pastor/priest what you have done so that you can have some helpful accountability."[6] Another warns of its "addictive qualities" and another writes that its "deceptive sexual ideals… propagate an addictive cycle of destructive, unsatiated desire. While users seek happiness and fulfillment, they instead foster the very force that oppresses and constrains their ability to flourish as human beings". The same columnist also compares the ideals set by porn to the racism towards blacks during the Jim Crow Era.[7]

Other time fillers seem to be ravings against feminism and gay marriage, and some homophobia for good measure, with a columnist comparing gay activists to Muslim radicals who murder Christians.[8]

External link[edit]


  1. Perhaps they meant the original book by Robert A. Heinlein, which presented those same themes completely seriously. Paul Verhoeven's whole intent with the film adaptation, in fact, was to mock and attack the message of its source material; having grown up in the Netherlands under Nazi occupation, he had some idea of what he was talking about.