You can call for Jewish Genocide at Harvard, Penn and MIT but don't you dare "culturally appropriate" on Halloween or doubt 97 genders exist!
My October 10th Essay could not have been more perfectly prescient. Read on for WHY these three immoral disgraces are so mealy-mouthed about students on their campuses calling for Jew Killing.
Congressional hearings can be dull affairs, or - very rarely - insanely informative events. Plenty of people have already covered the astonishing immorality and rank insanity of the three University Presidents - from Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania - being unable to say clearly and unequivocally that it is wrong for people to march around shouting for Jewish genocide.
My favorite quote came from Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) when he demanded incredulously of the President of Harvard, Claudine Gay, “In what world is a call for the murder of Jews acceptable free speech but the statement that biological sex is binary is prohibited?” He was referring to a professor of biology being fired for stating the obvious biological fact that male and female are the only two genders and those genders are genetically determined at birth.
That speech was silenced swiftly and firmly at Harvard. Calls for Jewish genocide in public? Not so much.
Gay, who has waffled immensely since October 7th, tried to sound all high-minded about lofty ideals and letting the little Maoist snowflakes learn how to navigate complex topics.
Well Harvard is certainly failing to “help them build the skills for constructive dialogue” when a survey found 70% of Harvard students think it is perfectly acceptable to shout down and drown out a speaker whose views those little Maoists don’t like. You’re doing a great job on that front, President Gay!
Following October 7th, it took days for Harvard to issue what should have been a simple statement saying that it is a priori evil for a terrorist organization running a government to rape, murder and kidnap 1,400+ unarmed people. No - we were told there was a great deal of “complexity” and “nuance” to a “difficult topic.”
There was no explosion of “cautious and nuanced examination of complex issues” in 2020 when a serial criminal drug addict killed himself by ingesting fentanyl and then fighting with cops to resist legitimate arrest in Minneapolis, which stress led to the overdose which the coroner’s report said killed him! Hell, no! Harvard, Penn and all these hypocritical Marxist Propaganda Factories fell over one another to issue the most strident, definitive and polarizing message of support for Blessed Saint George Floyd, who once held a loaded pistol to the abdomen of a pregnant woman while he and his equally saintly pals invaded her home violently. That was “clear cut,” you see - “evidence” of systemic white supremacy and needed immediate albeit inchoate calls to “end” this phantasm of the Leftist imagination.
Remember, these are the same pack of assholes who fired a Residence Hall Dean over “offensive Halloween costumes” and have held Maoist Struggle Sessions to reeducate people over nonsensical products of the Leftist imagination like “white supremacy,” “systemic racism” and “climate change” (as a religious cause, not a boring, obvious physical phenomenon).
If you are looking for the Common Denominator to all Leftist “causes” - which, by the way, they never will because Math and Logic are also racist white supremacist inventions designed hold “BIPOC” people back in some way that is never explained - that Common Denominator would be that every windmill at which they tilt has no objective reality. This is a helpful attribute for a “cause of outrage” to have, because something without objective reality can never be judged to be “fixed” or not.
To concretize that thought - again, in sharp contradistinction to the perpetually fuzzy assertions of the enemies of Western Civilization, here is the perfect contrast. When Rosa Parks protested the absurd segregation prevalent on public buses, no one doubted the existence of the offensive law demanding that black people sit in the back of the bus. Whether one liked or hated that law, its existence was never in doubt.
Fast forward to more recently when a spoiled brat millionaire getting paid to play a game called football decided to kneel instead of stand respectfully for the national anthem. He, too, claimed to be protesting something, as Rosa Parks did by sitting in the front of the bus. He was protesting “systemic racism.”
Can you spot the difference? In the first, Rosa Parks was deliberately violating a law whose objective existence was never in doubt. In the second, some proportion of the nation and world had no idea what this millionaire who clearly has not been systemically held back in any way was talking about. Because there was not universal agreement that a thing called “systemic racism” even exists, his protest was not at all clear.
To continue, the object of Rosa Parks’s protest had a clear bright line test as to whether or not her protest worked. If the law about bus segregation was repealed, then she had won her protest. (I know that is a gross simplification.) Again - there was no doubt in anyone’s mind about the law itself and whether it were changed.
To go back to our kneeling brat. Those who agreed with his viewpoints, supported his kneeling. Those who didn’t stopped watching football because they were offended by him jamming his obnoxious lies about America down their throats on a Sunday when they wanted to chill out and watch the game. But most crucially, as there was no agreement on the objective existence of the thing he was protesting, there was no accepted metric by which his kneeling could be shown to “work.”
Rosa Parks stopped protesting when black people could sit anywhere they liked. That was a successful protest. What would make the millionaire football player stand up? He himself never provided an answer to that, so his “protest” only succeeded in further polarizing people who otherwise would have no reason to dislike one another.
How would he - or anyone - judge when “systemic racism” had stopped?
That sense of perpetual division and never-ending crisis over things chosen carefully with that criterion in mind is what the Left focuses on exclusively. The old Democrats focused on real things in the real world - labor unions, health and safety rules imposed from above on companies, things that were quantifiable and actionable. This new crop of radical Leftists who have seized the Democrat Party bitch and moan deliberately about “issues” that cannot be resolved because at least half the nation don’t even believe they exist.
Hillary Clinton a few months ago was Demsplaining about how she would like to see Republicans choose candidates and formulate policy, so Democrats can better argue against them. In that some idiom, I am going to Logicsplain to Hillary that normal people would like to see Americans who understand the Constitution and our foundation of individual free rights hold positions of power in the Democrat Party.
Neither of us are going to get what we want.
The US taxpayer should not be funding this insanity. Hillsdale College gets along just great without a dime of taxpayer funding. If the People’s Cominterns of Harvard, Penn and MIT want to keep churning out Jew Hating Maoists, then let them do it without taxpayer dollars either directly or from not paying taxes on their massive endowment.
I hope the appalling insanity is waking up people to what has been going on for decades in what used to be excellent universities.
Great essay. It was pretty humerous watching the lunatics babbling and backpedaling the next day.
And it is just potential harassment. But if we hint that Diversity Inclusion Equity (DIE) is bad news we get targeted with the Pavlovian “hate speech” vomit.