It is truly shocking to see the intellectual incompetence displayed by recent Democrat First Ladies’ degrees in academic exposition, and the media praise they received. Recent analysis of Jill Biden’s doctoral dissertation has shown its complete inadequacy. Former First Lady Michelle Obama lauds Biden for being a “brilliant woman who has distinguished herself in her field” and has published an analysis.

Michelle Obama was awarded a Princeton Bachelor’s Degree for her senior thesis on “Princeton Education Blacks and The Black Community.” This is a scholarly honor that she received herself. It is a solitary achievement, which does not make Obama (then Michelle LaVaughn Robinson), qualified to comment on others’ brilliance.

We should all be grateful for the praise Michelle Obama has received for her public voice. Let’s not forget about her famous thesis. Although the thesis was written years ago, it was Obama’s ticket to the “new elite” despite being full of platitudes, pseudo-academic fustian, and it still holds true today.

There are so many grammatical and verbal errors in the study, one doesn’t know where to start. We find, almost immediately, in her preamble, a dangling modifier, something that we used to drilled out of ourselves in grade 5. Sometimes two words can be combined into one word, such as “underwhich.” “Underwhich” is a reference to my students’ preference for “alot.” Travis Kavulla from National Review flags “Predominately,” “their,” for “there” and blacks in comparison to “other” Third World Students. He may have added “accomlishes”, and “effected” to “affected.” However, we note that there are few references, which is a serious omission, as well as no source.

Obama considers Princeton “infamous” for being the Ivy League’s most conservative university. Her ardent examiners were able to accept this insult. Evidently, she is a strong believer in affirmative actions, which “provided many opportunities for Blacks economically. Carole Swain, a true black scholar, saw the myopia of this thinking and the civic fractures it caused.

Obama’s malaprop terminology can be painfully comical. “Tables 4.4.4a and 4.4a, which show the percentages of respondents who were or are motivated to benefit God and the individual-level changes in this motivation respectively, demonstrate an increase in respondents not motivated God.” “Benefit is one of her category terms.

She focuses on “measuring [the] degree attachment to individuals of various races.” This is a subjective interpretation that relies upon intuition and questionnaires that have been influenced by past biases, which are always true. It is clear that one often finds comfort in familiar things rather than unfamiliar things. It is also more common to be attached to things one is familiar with than to unfamiliar things.” This is, however, an empty platitude and a “subjective motivation”, which is considered a “dependent variable.”

This flurry of unsubstantial speculation is capped off by the cluttered, ungrammatical assurance that “By measuring relative discomfort respondents feel in interacting with Blacks & Whites as well the time spent actually interfacing with Blacks & Whites,” the study provides an insight into the respondents’ familiarity and motivations towards the Black lower classes. This will affect the degree to which respondents are attached or detached from Blacks / Whites.

Finally, her study declares itself irrelevant.

This document is marred with a complaining and self-justifying tone throughout. It also addresses a subject nobody can object too in a social climate infected by white guilt. The jargon can be either impenetrable or pleonastic, making it a veritable spaghetti code for applied language.

Dinesh Da Souza was clearly unselfish when he wrote: “Anyone who has ever read Michelle’s college thesis-a document so illiterate, incoherent, that it was written, Christopher Hitchens said, in ‘no recognized language’–will laugh heartily at this one.”

D’Souza was pro forma ridiculed in Newsweek’s hit piece. In fact, D’Souza was referred to as a felon because he served time under a vengeful Barack on a minor donation offense that was routinely forgiven by others. I bet that D’Souza’s critics have not read the entire thesis, perhaps not even one page. They would find it difficult and might even be forced to admit the truth. Jill Biden’s doctoral thesis is subject to the same caveat.

D’Souza’s judgments and Hitchens’ opinions are harsh, but it is important to note that Michelle Obama, even though she was younger, performed at a higher intellectual level. She showed herself capable of mastering sociology’s glossolalia, which is no small feat. Let’s give her that. She is significantly smarter than the other. Obama’s production, though, is a mass of academic sedatives and cliches that should be forgotten. It does not bring her credit, and it should not be used as a form deference syndrome.

As I suggested, it might be fair to suppose that Michelle Obama’s clearly inferior work is the result of her relative youth. This could be given some credit. Although this is possible, the act of certifying such work discredits Princeton as an elite institution. Poor confections are better regarded as academic indiscretions or apprentice work than as sterling achievements. It did lead, D’Souza demonstrates, to an useful degree in “obviology”.

Obama’s thesis should not be taken as a cause for celebration. It is also reflected in the shaming of the media and party hackers who have given it the reclame. Books like Becoming and The Light We Carry which were published by multi-million-dollar publishers, are quite different. These are adult publications that can be easily accessed, with personal details and an appearance of candor, which masks a certain Oprah-like self-infatuation.

These books have been praised by every quarter, but they are filled with platitudes and life affirmations and inspiring homilies. They read like self-help books, celebrity memoirs and vigil displays. Michelle is still the same Michelle, with a veneer social adroitness that appeals to women and Obama groupies. However, it’s no less fleeting than her university thesis.

Vanity is not a First Lady like Jill Biden or Michelle Obama, who considers herself to be an expert in an intellectual field and a cum laude University of Life graduate. Melania Trump was a class apart with her grace and class. In my defense, I could say that I wouldn’t have dealt with such contentious topics if the media, the talking heads and the bien penants — whom I call intelleftuals – not exaggeratedly lauded such mediocre efforts in the light of their superior achievement and intelligence. Their bloviations serve a political agenda, not a scrupulous evaluation of quality — which I believe is the curse of our age.