Our Un-American College Campuses

Our Un-American College Campuses

© David Burton 2013

College Disruptions

     In the past, American institutions of higher learning were bastions of academic freedom and free thinking. Not so today. America’s colleges and university campuses have become venues of highly un-American anti-Semitism and radical liberal intolerance.


     It is unfortunate that American college and university campuses have recently emerged as one of the major sites for the expression and dissemination of anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel hatred and vitriol. “At hundreds of institutions of higher learning, the concepts of academic freedom and student activism (which have been part of the Jewish success story on campus) have been invoked to shield hatred. No longer the ivory towers they were once considered, colleges and universities are proving all too porous to the prejudices emerging in our society. In recent years, campuses have become a new proving ground for the tactics of all manner of extremists, forcing some colleges and universities onto the frontline in the fight against extremism and anti-Semitism.
      - - -
     “The Nation of Islam, or far-right extremists denying the existence of the Holocaust, for example, may not have had their geneses at universities, but their speakers and advertisements have found fertile ground there. As students form their sense of self at college and seek a niche in the world, some are especially vulnerable to hatemongers who either stir their developing political passions or couch bigotry in academic terms designed to appeal to their intellectual curiosity. Controversial speech is often welcomed at universities more than in other venues; students see their campuses as havens of free expression, with the right to speak near sacred.
     “Racists and demagogues have ably exploited schools' commitment to free speech, cloaking their propaganda in the guise of academic freedom [Emphasis mine]. They have two objectives: hooking the country's future leaders on the ideas they preach, and generating mainstream media coverage through the controversy that inevitably erupts over particularly incendiary events.
     “Among America's students are many who grew up with little or no contact with Jews and who have a limited personal background to fall back upon when professional anti-Semites come to campus. For instance, young adults with little knowledge of the Holocaust might cast an uncritical look at a campus newspaper advertisement or scholarly-looking text claiming to prove that the murder of 6 million Jews is an historical hoax.
     “All too eager to prove their commitment to a free exchange of ideas, many students -- and sadly, school administrators as well -- in their idealism and naiveté, fail to distinguish adequately between debate that enriches and elevates the mind and speech that lowers the level of discourse to name-calling and lies. Many tend to treat all opinions and statements of fact as meriting equal consideration. This mind-set is often encouraged by the current academic vogue of deconstruction and post-modernism, which emphasize relativism and the social construction of ‘truth.’ The resulting intellectual atmosphere has provided fertile ground for the airing of conspiracy theories, newly invented mythologies and, in some instances, anti-Semitic propositions.
     “Another factor that has allowed anti-Semitic arguments to proliferate on campuses is the notion that the First Amendment requires their airing. But the Constitution does not oblige universities to host everyone who wants to speak or write there, nor does it require campus newspaper editors to publish every item submitted to them. Campus leaders and journalists have the job of responsibly drawing a line between valid, fact-based opinions and outright bigotry. Moreover, free speech is a two-way street. Students and school administrators have the right and responsibility to condemn and counter hatred. Their failure to do so not only contributes to the spread of hate-filled rhetoric, but causes victimized students to feel defensive, angry and isolated.
     “Instead of remaining a place where ideas and backgrounds mix harmoniously, or at least contend civilly, many campuses are becoming polarized along ethnic lines and riven by suspicions. The symptoms range from acts of vandalism, to hate-filled rallies, to ethnic stereotypes that are tolerated in student publications.
     “While a growing number of university presidents have responded strongly to the importation of bigotry to their campus, many others, regrettably, have not used their platforms to forcefully counter the hatemonger. Some college presidents have issued anemic and generic responses to naked anti-Semitism, using the shield of free expression as an excuse not to condemn extremism at their schools. Responses are often delayed, and then come only as a reaction to pressure from students, alumni, faculty and the surrounding community. Some college heads seem to believe that a response from the president will only fan the flames and keep an unwelcome incident in the public eye.
     “But just as student groups may exercise their right of free speech by sponsoring a controversial speaker or printing an incendiary opinion, university administrators may exercise their right of free speech by publicly criticizing both the message and the messenger. Criticism is not censorship. The fact that prejudice sometimes comes from a disadvantaged minority group does not give university heads carte blanche to ignore it. Most presidents would presumably want to uphold and elevate the level of debate on their campuses, not protect the racists who would turn the schools into battlefields of name-calling. Leaders must not abdicate their obligation to lead.
     “Administrators also do a disservice to their students when they hesitate to criticize students' spoken or printed words that eschew the standards of accountability and accuracy applied in most American workplaces. Instead of preparing them for the professional world, where one's work is usually subject to scrutiny and corrective review, these school officials allow students to think that their actions will never have consequences or ramifications beyond the walls of academia.
     “The hesitancy on the part of certain school heads in responding to anti-Semitism only seems that much more glaring when compared to the positive, timely statements made by some of their peers. University presidents who unequivocally and immediately condemn expressions of bigotry on their campuses send a clear message to students about the line that separates academic freedom from racism.
      - - -
     “Anti-Semitic speakers continue to be invited to address campus audiences in disturbing numbers. Individuals such as the Nation of Islam's Khalid Abdul Muhammad, CUNY Professor Dr. Leonard Jeffries, Wellesley Professor Tony Martin and Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) regularly include anti-Semitic statements and historical distortions in their campus speeches. (Ref. 1)

     “College campuses throughout the United States are bastions of racism and anti-Semitism, and for many years that fact has largely been ignored by the mainstream media.
     “In the ‘80’s anti-Semitism was largely dominated by the likes of African-American anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries. Today it’s a different bird, but whether it is BDS, claims of “pink-washing”, or students for Palestine, It’s all the same old anti-Semitism.
     “Over the last few weeks, there have been worldwide headlines with claims of rampant racism and anti-Semitism at liberal arts Oberlin College. A student claimed to have seen someone wearing a Ku Klux Klan uniform on campus. This followed months of racist and anti-Semitic messages on campus, which culminated in the college president, . . . apologizing to students who felt ‘threatened.’
      - - -
     “In recent weeks, at Cornell, Anti-Israel posters were distributed saying that ‘exclusively Jewish’ soldiers were engaged in ‘war-crime{s},’ not ‘combat,’ and served in ‘massacres,’ not ‘missions.’ Students for Justice in Palestine, a campus organization claimed responsibility and is now proudly organizing an Israel Apartheid Week to raise awareness of what it called the ‘racist, colonial nature of the Israeli occupation.’
     “At Harvard, Jewish students in the Harvard dormitories woke up to find flyers under the doors from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee informing them that they had been evicted from their dorm rooms. ‘We regret to inform you that your suite is scheduled for demolition in the next three days,’ the hoax flyer read.
     “The University of Texas, Austin, hosted a ‘BDS Conference’ calling for Israel to be boycotted.
     “New York City taxpayers subsidized the recent BDS conference at Brooklyn College where Jewish students were expelled from the speech in a possible violation of their civil rights.
     “Last month, at University of California-Santa Barbara, a Muslim Student Association (MSA)/Muslim Brotherhood affiliate hosted a conference with over 1000 students attending. Muslim Brotherhood is devoted to the elimination of Western civilization. There are MSA chapters which have supported Hamas before.
     “At Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, a student was called a ‘racist Zionist pig’ for questioning donations by Rutgers University to the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, a nonprofit organization with close ties to Islamic charity the Holy Land Foundation, which funds Hamas.
     “35 campuses just last week hosted Israel Apartheid Week where there were anti-Israel speakers, mock ‘apartheid walls’ and checkpoint displays on campus, and Anti-Israel films.
     “The possibility of someone wearing an outfit resembling a KKK uniform sparks outrage and wide-spread cancellation of classes, but the anti-Semitism at campuses nationwide isn’t hidden, disguised or infrequent. If the KKK is dangerous, then so too are all of the people calling for harm to come to the Jewish state.
     “There should be no double standard.” (Ref. 2 )

     “Many people suspect that American college students get a left-wing and sometimes radical slant from their professors, especially when it comes to matters concerning the Middle East. But few ever get a chance to peek into the lecture halls to see for themselves what today's higher education provides. It can be shocking.
     “On April 2, Americans for Peace and Tolerance/On Campus (APT/OC) released a 16 minute video showing radical professors and guest lecturers at Northeastern University in Boston teaching students that Israel is a Western colonialist project and that the Jews ‘use’ the Holocaust to distract from their needless oppression of the Palestinians, which is in fact comparable to the Holocaust itself. They are also taught that Jews do not qualify as ‘a people’ and so therefore do not qualify to have their own state. These things were taught at Northeastern in programs designed to teach students about the genocide of Europe's Jews.
      - - -
     Tasked with responding to the film, Northeastern's provost . . . chose not to apologize to Holocaust survivors or the Jewish community, but instead to charge . . . the filmmakers with ‘cherry picking’ - - -
     “A university administrator can only speak to Jews this way. He would not dare try that if it were found that a Black History Month observance featured speakers (even one) who postulated that blacks use their past suffering to take advantage of white people today. - - -
     “We all know what would happen if radical professors offended any other minority group on campus: You could count on one hand the seconds it would take the provost to assume the proper level of self-abasement. As night follows day, the university would direct all, top administrators included, into campus sensitivity programs.
     “But {Northeastern's provost} doesn't have to worry this way about offending the Jews, because many Jewish professors and administrators at his university will give him cover and because Boston Jewish community leaders would rather sue for peace than make a fuss.
     “Anti-Israelism abounds on campuses across the nation. Yet we do not hear much about this from Jewish professors who are the best witnesses — either because they are too intimidated or too beholden to their employer, or out of some sense of loyalty to an idealized scholarship that is above politics. They simply will not speak honestly in public about what they know happens on their campuses. And this is the problem behind the problem.
     “Jewish professors we've talked to at Northeastern knew about the abuses (and some complained internally), but they would not — and to date will not — go public. And now some are trying to keep Jewish students from speaking out.
      - - -
     “Jewish students tell us that when they approach Jewish professors and explain how anti-Israel professors intimidate or even humiliate them, they are usually told to ignore it, do their best in class, and get good grades. - - -
      - - -
     “- - - Criticizing other professors would bring an almost certain constant politicized combat they would hate to import into the peaceful scholarly realm they love. They would be charged with abandoning the ‘global view’ and with being a ‘narrow’ Jewish partisan. And, of course, if they didn't yet have tenure, they'd never get it in the fields of Middle East studies, foreign policy, or international studies — all controlled by people hostile to Israel. In short, if they told the public what they know is happening on their campus, daily life would be made unpleasant and career opportunities would wither.
      - - -
     “But someone has to break the silence on American campuses about the campaign to defame the Jewish state and its supporters. It looks like it may have to be outsiders.
     “Honesty and integrity tend to be the first casualties when institutions are criticized. It is particularly sad to see academics — who claim to spend their career seeking the truth — abandon them so quickly to mount silly defenses and launch ad hominem attacks on those who merely point out what all the insiders know to be true but keep under wraps.” (Ref. 3)

Radical Liberalism

     Once, parents sent their students to prestigious liberal arts colleges for an all-embracing education . Today when they send their sons and daughters off to college, what many of the students receive instead is a “Liberal” education. Read on to see examples of what I mean.

     “This is a classic case of what happens on college campuses. The College Republicans at Portland State University show the film “Obsession” (critical of Islam) in a public venue on campus. Muslim students and their socialist student allies take over the post-film discussion, bully the College Republicans to leave, begin their own discussion, and then have a campus cop kick out a man who was filming.” (Ref. 4)

     Larry Greenfield wrote the following. “On April 11th, 2013, I participated in a public forum entitled ‘Islamists Rising in the Middle East: Where Next for America?’
     “The panel was held at the University of California at Davis, (UCD), as a free event for the community - - -
      - - -
     “The panel included a leading scholar on the Middle East, Daniel Pipes, known for well-informed and well-traveled insights. His main theme for the evening was that radical Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution.
     “Joining Dr. Pipes and myself was Elan Journo, a thoughtful author on international affairs - - -
     “Our panel explored fundamentalist Islamic text, law, theory, and practice, the rise of the third Jihad, global Islamic violence and terrorism, the concept of abrogation (later Koranic verses replace earlier, more peaceful ones), martyrdom ideology, UN Bias against Israel, and how the Revolutionary Republic of Iran has long deceived the West about its nuclear proliferation program.
     “Interestingly, 4 days before the terror attacks in Boston, we also focused on Central Asian radicalism, including Chechen Islamists.
      - - -
     “ . . . on the day of the event, the California Aggie, the weekly student newspaper, published a letter to the UC Davis Chancellor condemning the "hate" speakers as "racist" and "Islamophobic."
     “This pre-emptive, censorious, and libelous attack, by an organized group of campus students and faculty leftists, failed to prevent the event, but threats of disruption required campus police and security to be present, at taxpayer expense - - -
     “However, a week later, it was revealed . . . that the UC Davis administration had been intimidated into responding to the students with its own letter full of careful language opposing ‘hate speech.’
     “Campus officials might do well to note and advise in the future that free speech implies no feelings protection for those who assert ‘offense’ at speakers whose views they detest. The truth may hurt, but that doesn't make it hateful.
     “Unfortunately, the radical students had another trick up their sleeve. They proposed Senate Resolution 21, asserting concerns about the event and longstanding upset with author David Horowitz, and UC Santa Cruz teacher Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, frequent critics of abusive bullying of Jewish students on UC campuses.
     “This resolution follows similar student government resolutions passed at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara condemning ‘hate speech.’
     “The bottom line is that there is a dedicated political strategy within radical Islam to smear critics of Jihadi violence as ‘discriminatory,’ proclaim offense at ‘hate speech,’ and label scholarship and teaching about human rights abuse and mass murder of Christians, for example, throughout Araby and the Middle East, as ‘Islamophobic.’
      - - -
     “It is one thing for soft-hearted, utopian liberals to preach peace and to wax lovingly for all mankind. They often have no background in military-security affairs, and no standing in the circles of patriotic defense of our country. Mere sentiments by fools with a poor grasp of reality.
     “Of course, we know the hate-America crowd cheered the Boston Marathon massacre - - - , but they aren't liberals; they are enemies of decency.
     “It is quite another path for conservatives to offer dialogue and connection to Muslim anti-Islamists. We are rooted in hard-headed knowledge of, and advocacy against, such Islamo-fascist behavior as female genital mutilation and honor killings, and Sharia-based murder, beheadings, fatwas, incitement, and persecutions emanating from Madrassas, mosques, the Arab media, and radical Imams.
     “It is therefore constructive and credible for severe critics of violent Jihad to note and applaud Muslim critics of anti-Americanism, and of anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism as well.
      - - -
     “Indeed, there are non-radical Muslim scholars and thinkers who have long denounced Jihadi terrorism and reject their violent interpretation of the Koran.
      - - -
     “This is all lost on un-informed student radicals at UC Davis, who have failed on all fronts. They failed to take the opportunity to learn from a scholarly panel; they failed to stop the campus community from hearing some truthful free speech about radical Islam; a nd they are unaware of conservatives with bona fides in confronting the Jihad (Daniel Pearl was my boyhood pal) who engage with and applaud moderate Muslims who regularly speak out against both militant and politically hostile Islamism.
     “But, of course, radical Islamists and their leftist defenders actually have no interest in secularist Muslims, or the honorable goal of befriending and encouraging them in the battle for the future of both Islam and Western peace, freedom, and security.” (Ref. 5)

     “ - - - the champions of censorship {today} are mostly on the left. And they are thickest on the ground in our colleges and universities. Since the late 1980s, what should be the most open, debate-driven, and tolerant sector of society has been in thrall to the diversity and political correctness that now form the aggressive secular religion of America’s elites.
     “The censors have only grown in power, elevating antidiscrimination rules above ‘absolutist’ free-speech principles, silencing dissent with antiharassment policies, and looking away when students bar or disrupt conservative speakers or steal conservative newspapers. . . . {T}he new censors aren’t interested in debates or open forums. They want to shut up dissenters.
     "In October, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal-immigration group. The students shouted: ‘They have no right to speak!’ Campus opponents of Congressman Tom Tancredo, an illegal-immigration foe, set off fire alarms at Georgetown to disrupt his planned speech, and their counterparts at Michigan State roughed up his student backers. Conservative activist David Horowitz, black conservative columnist Star Parker, and Daniel Pipes, an outspoken critic of Islamism, frequently find themselves shouted down or disrupted on campus.
     “School officials seem to have little more interest in free speech. At Columbia this fall, officials turned away most of a large crowd gathered to hear former PLO terrorist-turned-anti-jihadist Walid Shoebat, citing security worries. Only Columbia students and 20 guests got in. Colleges often cite the danger of violence as they cancel controversial speeches—a new form of heckler’s veto: shrinking an audience so that an event will seem unimportant is itself a way to cave to critics. In 2003, Columbia, facing leftist fury at the scheduled speeches of several conservatives . . . , banned scores of invited nonstudents who had agreed to attend. Though some schools cancel left-wing speakers, too—including Ward Churchill and Michael Moore, or abortion-supporters Anna Quindlen and Christie Whitman at Catholic universities—right-of-center speakers are the campus speech cops’ normal targets.
     “Official censorship—now renamed speech codes and antiharassment codes—pervades the campuses. - - -
      - - -
     “The College Republicans at Northeastern Illinois University canceled an announced affirmative-action bake sale after the administration threatened punishment. {The} Dean of students . . . announced that the cookie sellers would be violating university rules and that 'any disruption of university activities that would be caused by this event is also actionable.' This principle—politically incorrect speakers are responsible for attacks on them by students who resent their speech—is dear to campus censors’ hearts. The university didn’t view itself as engaging in censorship—and double-standard censorship at that, since it freely allowed a satirical wage-gap bake sale run by feminists. Absurdly, {the Dean} said that the affirmative-action sale would be fine—if cookie prices were the same for whites, minorities, and women. Other administrators complained that differential pricing of baked goods is unfair, thus unwittingly proving the whole point of the parody.
      - - -
    ”One of the PC campus’s worst excesses in suppressing unwanted speech is the drive by gays and their allies to banish or break Christian groups for their traditional beliefs on sexuality. Some 20 campuses have acted to de-recognize or de-fund religious groups that oppose homosexuality (as well as nonmarital sex), often accusing them of violating antidiscrimination rules—that is, refusing to let gays be members, or allowing them to belong but not serve as officers. The language of many policies would require a Democratic club to accept a Republican president, a Jewish group to allow a Holocaust-denying member, or a Muslim organization to accept a leader who practices voodoo.
      - - -
     ”The cause of free speech can no longer expect much help from the American Civil Liberties Union, more concerned today with civil rights and multicultural issues than with civil liberties and free speech. [Emphasis mine] True, the ACLU still takes some censorship cases—it led the fight against the first wave of campus speech codes circa 1990, for instance. But the rise of the ACLU’s internal lobbies or 'projects,' such as the Lesbian and Gay Project and the Immigrants’ Rights Project, has made the organization look more and more like a traditional left-wing pressure group, with little passion for the First Amendment. The ACLU is also following the money: funds flow in because the group responds to concerns of feminist, gays, and other identity groups, not because of its historical defense of free speech and civil liberties. (Ref. 6)

     Campus activists cower college administrators and exercise excessive power at many universities. At Swarthmore, “a prestigious liberal-arts college outside of Philadelphia, . . . fossil-fuel-divestment activists schooled in techniques of ‘direct-action protest’ have allied with a range of leftist groups to seize control of the college from an administration unwilling to stop them.”
     “Swarthmore is the epicenter of the national campaign to have college endowments sell off stock in fossil-fuel companies. . . . {T}he national divestment movement recently convened at Swarthmore to plot strategy. The goal of fossil-fuel divestment is not only to stigmatize America’s energy companies and penalize them with stock sell-offs, but to build a political movement powerful enough to tax conventional energy producers out of existence – all in the name of fighting global warming.
     “As it’s spread like wildfire across America’s campuses, the divestment movement has allied with anti-capitalists such as Occupy Wall Street, as well as with advocates for ‘marginalized sexualities’ and various other grievance groups. In effect, the campus fossil-fuel-divestment movement has become the beating heart of a newly revitalized campus hard Left.
     “Swarthmore’s activists signaled a radicalization of their movement on May 4 {2013} when they forcibly seized control of an open Board of Managers meeting, issued demands and ejected conservative students, while Swarthmore’s president . . . stood by and did nothing. Video of this ugly incident has been passed around the Internet as if it’s something to brag about.”
      - - -
     "Mountain Justice is the campus fossil-fuel-divestment movement.
     "{According to the college spokesperson for Mountain justice,} Tolerance at Swarthmore can only be reactionary, a shield to hide behind when the terms of debate become too threatening. Students at Swarthmore ought not to tolerate their classmates who choose to go on to work for large Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, for example, or who pursue conventional careers in international relations. Not only Swarthmore’s tradition of tolerance, but the entire ‘liberal project’ must be junked, in favor of a program of radical ‘liberation.’”
      - - -
     "{In early May of 2013,} about 100 protesters led by Mountain Justice marched into a meeting of Swarthmore’s Board of Managers, surrounded the speakers, and seized control of the room. The protesters’ collective statement expressed determination to transform Swarthmore from a liberal institution into one that was ‘radical and emancipatory.’
     “The sheer deviousness of the protesters was impressive. Mountain Justice had repeatedly called on Swarthmore’s Board of Managers to set aside their usual practice of private meetings to hold an open forum. Having lured the Board to a public meeting under false pretenses, Mountain Justice sprang their trap and marched in. The Board’s expert on the economics of fossil-fuel divestment managed to get through about a minute of his talk before he was stopped by protesters.
     “Campus opponents of divestment . . . were likewise deceived. Once Mountain Justice commandeered the administration’s microphone, conservatives were told they’d have to wait until all the protesters had made speeches before addressing the Board. When one of the conservatives . . . called for a return to the agreed-upon order, the protesters deployed a carefully rehearsed tactic for silencing opposition – they ‘clapped her down.’
      - - -
     "{When a moderate at the meeting complained} that protesters have hijacked the meeting and broken the agreed-upon order of participation . . . and another conservative student leaped to her defense, the protesters begin to clap in unison at an ever-quickening pace until the {moderate} and her defenders {were} drowned out. Board members and administrators would have been clapped down as well if they’d had the guts to object {to} the takeover. Then, when an audience member {told} the protesters, ‘You have to stop with these intimidation tactics,’ a protester launche{d} into a tirade at the podium.
     "{At this point, the moderate called on the moderator who was supposed to be chairing the meeting to retake control. When the moderator refused, the conservative turned to the Swarthmore President to plead for a restoration of order. The President agreed that the takeover} was ‘outrageous,’ but shrugged and said there was nothing she could do. After another fruitless plea for a restoration of order to {the} Dean of Students, {the moderate and other conservatives present} left the meeting, silenced.
      - - -
     “A Swarthmore freshman . . . wrote . . . that the decision of the history faculty to endorse divestment as a department, rather than as individuals, contributed ‘to a lock-down of discussion on campus,’ intimidating and alienating prospective history majors who may not have supported divestment.
      - - -
     If you’re a stellar student, don’t mind ad hominem attacks, and know how to avoid courses taught by intolerant professors, you just might get along at Swarthmore as a conservative. But even then, you’ll find not a single conservative professor to study with. - - -
      - - -
     “In response to the Board takeover, the administration planned to hold open-ended ‘community discussions’ led by students with contrasting viewpoints, so as not to ‘exclude or marginalize’ any group. That program was quickly dismantled when radicals showed up at a planning meeting, many of them uninvited, to insist on holding ‘teach-ins’ where their demands for transforming Swarthmore would be discussed. Student attendance must be mandatory, said the radicals. Administrators knuckled under without resistance, again leaving conservatives ‘excluded and marginalized.’
      - - -
     “At its official website, Swarthmore’s administration played these 'teach-ins' as earnest good-faith conversations, rather than what they were: mandatory re-education sessions held at the insistence of the radicals in defiance of the administration’s plans, not to mention the wishes of conservative students. The radicals themselves were furious at the dissembling. They wanted credit for having forced their demands on the school. Swarthmore quickly blocked all comments on the online article describing post-takeover events at the school, an effective way of preventing parents from finding out what was actually happening on campus. (Ref. 7)

     Do liberals control our college campuses? Consider the following. “Young America's Foundation's 20th annual ‘Commencement Speakers Survey’ reveals that 62 liberal speakers - and only 17 conservatives-are scheduled to speak or have already spoken at the 2012 commencement ceremonies for the top 100 universities as listed by U.S. News and World Report.
      - - -
     “While these liberals indoctrinate college students, conservative voices are being silenced. Neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson, who has risen to national fame for his criticism of this administration's leftist policies, was banned from speaking at Johns Hopkins University by an online petition from liberal students.” (Ref. 8)

     “Nationwide, students from grade school to college report that they are persecuted and ridiculed by instructors if they don't agree with the liberal and socialist agenda that is presented. College students have been blacklisted by professors . . .
     “At Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel has finally drawn the attention of University administrators. The film, ‘The David Project,’ alleges some faculty members violate students' rights by using the classroom as a platform for anti-Israeli political propaganda. One Israeli student reported that a professor taunted him by asking, ‘How many Palestinians did you kill?’
      - - -
     “In the past, students have kept quiet about abuses by professors for fear of receiving bad grades or even being expelled. . . .
      - - -
     “. . . {A} large-scale survey of the political affiliations of American academics using academic association membership lists from six fields {was conducted}. The results are shocking. There are thirty Anthropologists registered as Democrats for every one registered as a Republican. Economics professors are the least liberal; in their field, the ratio is only three to one. Overall, among the six academic disciplines, the ratio is fifteen Democrats for every one Republican.” {Liberal elitism is indeed alive and kicking at America’s institutions of higher learning.}
     “The disproportionate number of liberals to conservatives would not be so distressing if the professors kept their politics to themselves, as they claim they do. However, when the liberals and socialists control all the oversight mechanisms, it is difficult for them to do the right thing. Why not brainwash and indoctrinate instead of teaching when the only ones who can discipline you for it are fellow liberals?
     “In a survey of students at 50 top schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that has argued there is too little intellectual diversity on campuses, 49 percent of students reported that professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter. And 31 percent said they felt there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor's political or social views to get a good grade!
      - - -
     “{Clearly,} liberals, Democrats and Socialists are firmly in control of academia at all levels. . . . And as we have seen, independent studies show that the vast majority of college and university professors are extremely liberal, and persecute students who have differing opinions.
      - - -
     “{What is taking place at many of America’s colleges and universities is} nothing less than institutionalized brainwashing. When lies are repeated over and over by authority figures; when students are ridiculed or disciplined for speaking their minds; and when no dissent is allowed: It is nothing less than brainwashing.
     “Nikita Khrushchev boasted that he and his comrades would defeat America without firing a shot by infiltrating our institutions and changing the way we think. It is starting to look like he was right.” (Ref. 9)

     Are our colleges and universities liberal, conservative or a mix of both? I would unequivocally claim that that they are bastions of liberal dogmatism. Freedom of speech on American college campuses has all-too-often vanished under the strident attacks from left-leaning, radical-liberal college professors, administrators, students and outside rabble-rousers.

     A recent study showed that out of 150 invited commencement speakers at colleges and universities, there were “just four conservative speakers as opposed to 69 liberal speakers.
      - - -
     “- - - The reason few conservative speakers are invited is that college administrators are frightened by radical-left students and faculty. Last month, Karl Rove’s speech at the University of Massachusetts was disrupted, and so was the address by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul at Howard University.” (Ref. 10)

     In 2013, Bill O’reilly headed up a benefit for a foundation at Boston University (B.U.) to help victims of violent crimes. O’Reilly had attended B.U. and earned a master’s degree there in broadcast journalism. The foundation had been established by a B.U. student and her family. The student had been raped in a B.U. dorm and had to withdraw from the school.

     {Because O’Reilly is known to be highly conservative, a} “number of far-left professors and administrators, including a university vice president, boycotted the event. The school did little to promote it and essentially folded under the pressure of the zealots. It was an absolute disgrace and an insult to {the rape victim} and her family. That tells you all you need to know about the mentality of fanatical college professors and the cowardly administrators who enable them.
     “There is no question that liberal indoctrination is a fact of life on most American college campuses. . . . {Liberal tenured college professors} dominate and intimidate their students. If you go up against them, your grade often suffers. There is a tyranny in higher education that is gravely harming this nation. - - - The goal of higher-education should be to champion the airing of all honest viewpoints. Nothing less is acceptable.” (Ref. 10)

     “To please Muslim-rights groups, more and more colleges are hiring Muslim chaplains, only to watch them radicalize students. Campuses need tougher background checks.
     “Alarmingly, some chaplains have actively supported al-Qaida and called for violent jihad against ‘kaffirs,’ or infidels. And yet they still have access to students, and remain on the university payroll.
     “Take Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, Muslim chaplain at Northeastern University in Boston. He has urged Muslims to pick up the ‘gun and sword’ on behalf of recently imprisoned al-Qaida terrorists.
     “Last month, Faaruuq held a fundraiser for Aafia Siddiqui, a one-time MIT student also known as ‘Lady al-Qaida,’ who's serving an 86-year prison sentence for opening fire on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
     “Siddiqui, a senior al-Qaida operative based in Pakistan, was captured with notes about a ‘mass casualty attack’ in the U.S., along with a list of New York landmarks.
     "’What a brave woman she continues to be, and how much her bravery and her faith and her belief warrants our support at this time,’ said Faaruuq, as he encouraged Massachusetts Muslims to help raise $30,000 for her appeal.
     "’She's only guilty of defending herself,’ he said. In fact, Siddiqui yelled ‘Death to America’ as she fired on soldiers. A federal judge called her actions premeditated.
     “While ignoring such evidence, the Northeastern chaplain condemned American soldiers as ‘kaffirs’ and exhorted Muslims to ‘cut through’ them . . .
     "’Go out and do your job,’ he said, referring to jihad.” (Ref. 11)

     But there may yet be hope that some of the college administrators are coming to their sense, if only belatedly and only with a whimper.

     “In what may be the first time a Muslim religious figure was removed from a campus position by a university administration, Boston’s Northeastern University told Imam Abdullah Faaruuq that his services as chaplain for Muslim students were ‘no longer needed.’ This happened just days after . . . an expose documenting that Faaruuq is a supporter of convicted Islamist terrorists who is inciting Boston Muslims against the U.S government.
     “{A video on the issue showed} that there is a culture of extremism at the Islamic Society of Northeastern University (ISNU) – the Muslim student group on campus that Faaruuq led as its ‘spiritual adviser.’
      - - -
     “ - - - the website of the Northeastern Muslim student group, which {Imam Abdullah Faaruuq} served as a spiritual adviser, openly promoted radical books and extremist leaders who call for jihad, the genocide of Jews, and death for homosexuals.
      - - -
     “Northeastern has gone practically radio silent on the matter, speaking only of a ‘reorganization’ of its Spiritual Life Center and denying that Faaruuq’s Islamic extremism was an issue for them. While surely repulsed by the Imam’s rhetoric, the university’s administration understands that if it admitted the true reason for Faaruuq’s dismissal, it would be attacked on campus by the left and by radical Muslims as Islamophobic and racist. - - -
     “Northeastern made a commendable decision, even if it continues to be shrouded in silence. Leaving Faaruuq in place would have meant a continual betrayal of Muslim students that reject extremism and Muslim parents, who may not be aware that their children are being radicalized on Northeastern’s campus. (Ref. 12)

     One last example of radicalism on campus. “On Facebook, they call themselves the ‘Anti-(Conservative) Crusaders’, the ‘Americans against Fox News and (Conservative) Lies’, ‘the 99%’, even ‘People Against Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and Hate Speech’. They set up tents in public places, defecate on police cars, and denounce the ‘1%’. They scream obscenities and threaten the ‘fascists’ who dare disagree with them. You guessed it, they’re progressive student activists.
     “- - - Whether they are defacing a Reagan poster, stealing signs, ripping apart flags, or stapling their propaganda over Margaret Thatcher quotes, the message is the same: in a ‘progressive’ society there is no room for dissenting ideas.
     "The actions of these self-proclaimed champions of tolerance, equality, and respect prove again and again just how intolerant they truly are. Apparently, the Left’s perceived love of free speech and tolerance is extended only to other leftists. All others are labeled bigots, fascists, and idiots. The question must be begged, who are the true bigots?" [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 13)


  1. Schooled in Hate: Anti-Semitism on Campus, ADL; http://archive.adl.org/sih/sih-intro1.asp , Accessed 1 June 2013.
  2. Double-Standard for Anti-Semitism on Campus, Ronn Torossian, Arutz Sheva 7; israelnationalnews.com, 12 March 2013.
  3. Northeastern University — Profs Gone Wild, Charles Jacobs, Campus-Watch.org, 17 April 2012.
  4. Leftists Take Over College Republican Event Reset Discussion Ground Rules and Campus Cop Ejects Photographer, Before It’s News, 31 May 2013.
  5. Leftists Defend Radical Islam — Conservatives Befriend Secular Muslims, Larry Greenfield, Campus Watch; campuswatch.org, 29 April 2013.
  6. Free Inquiry? Not on Campus, John Leo, Campus Watch; uvm.edu, Winter 2007.
  7. Swarthmore Spinning Out of Control, Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, 14 May 2013.
  8. 2013 Commencement: Liberals Dominate Conservatives Again, Young America’s Foundation, 16 May 2013.
  9. Brainwashing Our Kids, Tom Barrett, ConservativeTruth.org, 3 March 2008.
  10. Liberals drown out debate on campus, Bill O’Reilly, Boston Herald, Page 13, 1 June 2013.
  11. Who's Vetting Muslim Chaplains On College Campuses?, Editorial, Investor’s Business Daily, 24 January 2013.
  12. Who's Vetting Muslim Chaplains On College Campuses?, Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov, breitbart.com, 28 September 2012.
  13. The Difference on Campus: Conservative Activism vs. Leftist Intolerance, Matts Wilcoxen, Young America’s Foundation, 16 January 2012.

  21 June 2013 {Article 167; Whatever_30}    
Go back to the top of the page