|
The Day The Empress'
Clothes Fell Off Did the Congressional
hearings finally expose the scandal of the Ivy League?
It
may be too much to expect that the Congressional hearings this week, starring
the three presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn, will wake people up to the
toxic collapse of America’s once-great Ivy League. But I can hope, can’t I?
In the immortal words of Hitch (peace be upon him), as you listen to these
people, “You see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they
have dined.” The mediocrities smirked, finessed, condescended, and stonewalled. Take a good look at them. These are the people who now select our elites. And they select them, as they select every single member of the faculty, and every student, by actively discriminating against members of certain “privileged” groups and aggressively favoring other “marginalized” ones. They were themselves appointed in exactly the same way, from DEI-approved pools of candidates. As a Harvard dean, Claudine Gay’s top priority was “making more progress on diversity,” i.e. intensifying the already systemic race, sex and gender discrimination that defines the place. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court case, the energetic discrimination against Asian-American candidates for admission at Harvard is no longer in doubt. But countless other candidates for admission have little to no chance, regardless of their grades, or extracurriculars, because they belong to the wrong race, sex, sexual orientation, and “gender identity.” As soon as students are admitted under this identity framework, they are taught its core precepts: that the “truth” — or, in Harvard’s now-ironic motto, “Veritas” — is a function not of logic or reason or of open, free, robust debate and dialogue, let alone of Western civilization, but of inimical and evil “power structures” rooted in identity that need to be dismantled first. Identity first; truth second — because truth is rooted in identity and cannot exist outside of it. In the hearings, President Gay actually said, with a straight face, that “we embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful.” This is the president whose university mandates all students attend a Title IX training session where they are told that “fatphobia” and “cisheterosexism” are forms of “violence,” and that “using the wrong pronouns” constitutes “abuse.” This is the same president who engineered the ouster of a law professor, Ronald Sullivan, simply because he represented a client, of whom Gay and students (rightly but irrelevantly) disapproved, Harvey Weinstein. This is the same president who watched a brilliant and popular professor, Carole Hooven, be effectively hounded out of her position after a public shaming campaign by one of her department’s DEI enforcers, and a mob of teaching fellows, because Hooven dared to state on television that biological sex is binary. This is the president of a university where a grand total of 1.46 percent of faculty call themselves “conservative” and 82 percent call themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” This is the president of a university which ranked 248th out of 248 colleges this year on free speech (and Penn was the 247th), according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Harvard is a place where free expression goes to die. The critics who keep pointing out “double
standards” when it comes to the inflammatory speech of pro-Palestinian
students miss the point. These are not double standards. There is a single
standard: It is fine to malign, abuse and denigrate “oppressors” and forbidden
to do so against the “oppressed.” Freedom of speech in the Ivy League extends exclusively to the voices of the oppressed; they are also permitted to disrupt classes, deplatform or shout down controversial speakers, hurl obscenities, force members of oppressor groups — i.e. Jewish students and teachers in the latest case — into locked libraries and offices during protests, and blocked from classrooms. Jewish students have even been assaulted — at Harvard, at Columbia, at UMass Amherst, at Tulane. Assaults by woke students used to be rare, such as the 2017 mob at Middlebury that put Allison Stanger in a neck brace — but since 10/7, they’re intensifying. If a
member of an oppressor class says something edgy, it is a form of violence.
If a member of an oppressed class commits actual violence, it’s speech.
That’s why many Harvard students instantly supported a fundamentalist terror
cult that killed, tortured, systematically raped and kidnapped Jews just for
being Jews in their own country. Because they have been taught it’s the only
moral position to take. They’ve diligently read their Fanon, and must be
puzzled over what the problem is. Palestinians are victims of a “colonial,”
“white,” “settler-state” and any violence they commit is thereby justified. It would be wrong to see this as a function merely of old-school anti-Semitism. The new anti-Semitism is simply a subsidiary of the entire rubric of “anti-Whiteness” that is taught as the supreme principle of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.” DEI does not mean and has never meant diversity, equity and inclusion for all. It means active support for the “oppressed” against the “oppressors.” It means challenging “whiteness,” as represented by individual white people. Let’s go to the Smithsonian to read a definition of the term: Since
white people in America hold most of the political, institutional, and
economic power, they receive advantages that nonwhite groups do not. These
benefits and advantages, of varying degrees, are known as white
privilege. For many white people, this can be hard to hear, understand, or
accept — but it is true. Now replace the word “white” with “Jewish,” and it all fits neatly into place, doesn’t it? Jews “hold most of the power.” Jews “receive advantages” others do not. Jews have “Jewish privilege.” Within “white supremacy” there is, definitionally, “Jewish supremacy,” because Jews in America (and even Israel!) are defined by their “whiteness.” They may not want to hear it, but they are the oppressor class now. If “white supremacy” is changed to “Jewish supremacy,” you even get the title of David Duke’s 2003 book, Jewish Supremacism. The
tropes, the structure, and the psyche of anti-Semitism have simply been
copied and pasted onto anti-whiteness. There’s the same envy and resentment
of an all-controlling racial group that is deemed not inferior (as in anti-black
racism), but superior — by underhanded, shifty, rigged means. That’s why the
word “merit” is now derided in the Ivy League: it doesn’t exist in
neo-Marxist eyes. Only power exists. As whites, Jews helped construct a Constitution long ago that pretends to guarantee equal rights, but once you “awaken” to the racist conspiracy that will always define America, you can see it was actually designed to oppress non-white goyim forever. This is what the New York Times believes, as we discovered in 2019, in an entire issue of their magazine, which they then distributed to high-school kids, so they could learn which groups to hate in America, and which groups to love. This is why when non-whites commit hate crimes, they are instantly redefined as enacting “white supremacy.” It is why it is not “triggering” to call a conservative student a “white supremacist” or a white gay man of my generation a “queer” — we deserve it as oppressors — but it is a form of violence if you misgender a trans person or ask where someone is from. Even “Silence Is Violence,” as the BLM protestors insisted. In fact, some say, “silence is the worst form of violence.” Could Chairman Mao have put it better? It is why you can set up a segregated dorm at MIT, call it “Chocolate City,” and be praised by the president, Sally Kornbluth, as being about “positive selection.” It’s why due process exists in sexual abuse cases for women on campus, but is denied to all men. It’s why these universities have racially segregated graduations for everyone — except “whites.” And because this grotesque racist engineering requires admitting vast numbers of students who cannot meet the academic standards of the evil past, 80 percent of Harvard and Yale students now get an A or A- as a grade. This is not “equity,” however they re- and re-define it. It is the hard bigotry of no expectations. The
absolute worst thing you can do right now is what the presidents of these
woke institutions now say they intend to do: switch Jews out of the
“oppressor class” and into the “oppressed one,” and re-apply all the DEI
discrimination on their behalf. That doesn’t solve the problem; it compounds it. Pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel speech should no more be censored than any other — and the suppression is real. There should be one standard and it should be free speech. But there can be no free speech and no guarantee of it until the toxins of critical theory, and the architecture of its enforcement, DEI, are excised from the university altogether. Asking the current leadership to correct these lost institutions is an exercise in futility. End DEI in its entirety. Fire all the administrators whose only job is to enforce its toxic orthodoxy. Admit students on academic merit alone. Save standardized testing — which in fact helps minorities, and it’s “the best way to distinguish smart poor kids from stupid rich kids,” as Steven Pinker said this week. Restore grading so that it actually means something again. Expel students who shut or shout down speech or deplatform speakers. Pay no attention to the race or sex or orientation or gender identity of your students, and see them as free human beings with open minds. Treat them equally as individuals seeking to learn, if you can remember such a concept. David Wolpe is a distinguished and learned rabbi who resigned this week from Harvard’s advisory committee on anti-Semitism. In a tweet, he wrote: Harvard
is still a repository of extraordinary minds and important research. However,
the system at Harvard along with the ideology that grips far too many of the
students and faculty, the ideology that works only along axes of oppression
and places Jews as oppressors and therefore intrinsically evil, is itself
evil. Yes,
it is evil. This is no time to be mealy-mouthed about it. And we must root it
out. Before its poison makes our liberal democracy almost impossible to
reconstruct. |
|||||||||||||||