Higher education has long been guilty of conduct unbecoming of the syllogism. Not content with negative obedience to the principles of PC, the Sadducees of multiculturalism eliminate the negativity: "I teach, therefore I censor."
The result is the successful indoctrination of an entire generation. Witness the youthful Silicon Valley Moguls who are completely dependent upon conservative notions of intellectual property rights and capital investment for their success and survival yet consistently donate to liberal candidates who bang the Lexus drum to tax them mightily. They see no connection between conservative doctrines and their economic freedom.
Submission to sloppy orthodoxy and platitudes of PC has clicked along with little opposition. Once every so many moons (a tip of the hat to multiculturalism), sunshine, albeit through a depleted ozone courtesy of fabricated global warming science, descends upon the academy's practices to disinfect and the public is aghast.
Such a break in the inclement weather for campus conservatives came last week when news broke that David Horowitz's ad on the 10 reasons reparations for slavery are wrong was rejected by campus newspapers or resulted in scores of apologies and general repentance when it did run. It is one thing for campus newspapers to run ads for Hooters and keggers, but political activism crosses the line, partner.
While it is lovely to have the public with us renegades who fight campus daftness daily, their outrage is misdirected and too little too late. The outrage should not arise from refusals or apologies but rather because the only way the contra case to slavery reparations can make its way into campus discourse is through an ad.
The public should be focused on the question, "Why aren't you discussing reparations?" Lack of a meaningful dialogue on any PC topic is accepted in higher ed.
Indeed, a letter from Berkeley's assistant chancellor to Horowitz stated, "Although your advertisement purported to be a response to claims made for reparations for slavery, there has been no active discussion of such claims on this campus prior to your advertisement. No demand for 'dialogue' existed prior to your efforts to provoke it."
An administrator states with pride that no one wanted a dialogue? How courses in law, history, ethics, economics, anthropology and political science could not trigger such discussions staggers the imagination.
But those charged with the discovery of ideas in society have not fostered imagination. Those in the academy have suppressed imagination by arresting the inner minds of their charges with inviolate PC hype. Higher education is no longer the birthplace of ideas. Blatant hypocrisy passes without objection.
When our vote-counting former VP began his teaching career at Columbia University this year, not only were outsiders excluded, the students had to pledge not to reveal what they learned from his Goreishness. Does a gag order in a journalism class strike no one as odd?
Then again, Columbia is home to a sexual harassment policy that would make Genghis Khan blush. Harassers are declared guilty and punished without the right to confront their accusers. Such practices give communism a bad name, yet those who have opposed the Columbia policy have been called "would-be sexual assailants."
Even a cursory look at the curricula of universities is disturbing. Multiculturalism, not math, not language and certainly not spirituality, is now virtually a universal requirement for a degree. Students worship the pagan god of diversity.
Sixty-four credit hours into her college education, my oldest daughter has read the work of one white male — Mark Twain, who, she has been told, was a racist.
In my own course on business ethics I require a book by white male Michael Novak on business and society. As a philosopher making the case for capitalism, he charts new territory. I have students who refuse to read the book. Others take offense. One student threw the book away after three chapters, so great was her umbrage.
That they oppose capitalism is not news. That they are offended by free enterprise is hardly surprising. What is stunning is that graduate students are so molded by higher-ed censorship that they feel justified in refusing to read an opposing view.
That it takes an ad in a college newspaper to even raise the voice of opposition should be demoralizing to those who value independent thought and its role in preserving democracy. The roots of freedom wither away courtesy of the institutions we support through tax dollars and tuition. While I appreciate the public outrage over Horowitz, the problems in higher education run much deeper, right down to the roots — at least what's left of them. And I do mean left.
Marianne M. Jennings is a professor of legal and ethical studies at Arizona State University. Her e-mail address is mmjdiary@aol.com