The Progressive/Liberal University

From here, the demonstrations became more violent. “In 1967, the University of California, Berkeley police had to use, extensively, chemical Mace to control anti-war crowds which, though increasing in size, included fewer and fewer Cal students and more outsiders attracted to Berkeley looking for a “good time” or something more sinister.

Campus buildings began to get firebombed because of the presence of a ROTC and soon the “Free Huey” movement (Huey Newton – the notorious Black Panther Party leader arrested for shooting a police officer) began. By 1969, students were demonstrating – and still being arrested by the hundreds – demanding the creation of a “Third World College.”

And then came People’s Park in the City of Berkeley. The University had purchased a plot of land a few blocks to the south of campus, hoping to build student dorms on that site. Cal students et al claimed the land for themselves, working together to turn the plot of land into what they called a “People’s Park.”

When the administration decided to go ahead with the construction plans — 30,000 students (and denizens) marched on the “Park” in mid-May 1969 and confront 2,000 National Guard troops which Governor Ronald Reagan had called in.

Chancellor Heyns eventually backed down and decided to build a playing field on this plot of land instead. [The “inmates” were now running the asylum.] Ronald Reagan, who had denounced the Berkeley radicals and had become governor, then ousted Berkeley president Clark Kerr. 

 Things were not quiet on the other coast either. The Columbia University (where else?) protests of 1968 were among the many student demonstrations that occurred around the world in that year. The Columbia protests erupted over the spring after students discovered links between the university and the institutional apparatus supporting the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, as well as their concern over an allegedly segregated gymnasium to be constructed in the nearby Morningside Park [a classic example of a favorite PLDC tactic – the “big lie” – the bigger the lie, the more the uninformed and the ignorant would believe it]. The protests resulted in the student occupation of many university buildings and the eventual violent removal of protesters by the New York City police

In early March 1967, a Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society activist named Bob Feldman discovered documents in the International Law Library detailing Columbia’s institutional affiliation with the Institute for Defense Analyses  (IDA), a weapons research think-tank affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense. The nature of the association had not been, to that point, publicly announced by the University.

Prior to March 1967, IDA had rarely been mentioned in the U.S. media or in the left, underground or campus press. A few magazine articles on IDA had appeared between 1956 and 1967 and IDA had been mentioned in a few books for academic specialists published by university presses. The RAND Corporation, not the Institute for Defense Analyses, was the military-oriented think-tank that had received most of the publicity prior to March 1967. But after Feldman’s name appeared in some leftist publications in reference to the Columbia-IDA revelation, the FBI opened a file on him and started to investigate, according to Feldman’s de-classified FBI files.

The discovery of the IDA documents touched off a Columbia SDS anti-war campaign between April 1967 and April 1968, which demanded the Columbia University administration resign its institutional membership in the Institute for Defense Analyses. Following a peaceful demonstration inside the Low Library administration building on March 27, 1968, the Columbia Administration placed on probation six anti-war Columbia student activists, who were collectively nicknamed “The IDA Six,” for violating its ban on indoor demonstrations.

Columbia’s plan to construct a gymnasium in city-owned Morningside Park, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, also touched off negative sentiment on campus and in the nearby, historically African-American, Harlem community. Opposition began in 1965 during the mayoral campaign of liberal Republican John Lindsay, who opposed the project. By 1967 community opposition had become more militant. 

One of the causes for dispute was the gym’s proposed design, which would have included access for residents of (primarily African-American) Harlem through a so-called “back door” to a dedicated community facility on its lower level. This design was actually a solution to the gym’s physical placement on the park’s highly inclined slope, at the bottom of which is Harlem and at the top of which is Morningside Heights, where Columbia’s campus is situated.

By 1968, seven years after the gym’s proposal had been hailed as mutually beneficent, the civil rights movement cast things in a different light. The previously acceptable and pragmatic design was now interpreted by the “politically correct” crowd as segregationist and therefore discriminatory, and labeled “Gym Crow”. Herbert Marcuse would be so proud! Bill Ayres was.

In addition, others were concerned with the appropriation of land from a public park. Harlem activists opposed the construction because, despite being on public land and a park, Harlem residents would get only limited access to the private facility. Incidently, since 1958 the University had evicted more than seven thousand Harlem residents from Columbia-controlled properties – 85 percent of whom were African-American or Puerto Rican. Many Harlem residents paid rent to the University.

The first protest occurred just eight days before the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In response to the Columbia Administration’s attempts to suppress anti-IDA student protest on its campus, and Columbia’s plans for the Morningside Park gymnasium, Columbia SDS activists and the student activists who led Columbia’s Student Afro Society (SAS) held a second, confrontational demonstration on April 23, 1968.

After the protesting, Columbia and Barnard (Columbia’s “sister” all-female college) students were prevented from protesting inside Low Library by Columbia security guards, most of the student protesters marched down to the Columbia gymnasium construction site in Morningside Park, attempted to stop construction of the gymnasium and began to scuffle with the New York City police officers who were guarding the construction site.

The NYPD arrested one protester at the gym site. Columbia SDS chairman Mark Rudd then led the protesting students from Morningside Park back to Columbia’s campus, where students took over Hamilton Hall, a building housing both classrooms and the offices of the Columbia College Administration.

An important aspect of the 1968 Columbia University protests was the manner in which activists were separated along racial lines. During the takeover of Hamilton Hall, the 60 African-American Students at Columbia involved with the protest, stated that the white students were not wanted in Hamilton Hall. This position came as a total surprise to the mostly-white SDS. This was because, while both the SAS and the SDS had the goal of preventing the construction of the new gymnasium, the two groups held different agendas.

The goal of the SDS was to mobilize the student population of Columbia while the SAS was primarily interested in halting the gym construction throughout the duration of the protests. The members of the SAS requested that the white radicals begin their own, separate protest so that the black student group could put all of its focus into preventing the university from building the gym. As part of the Black Power Movement, the African-American students claimed that the European-American students could not understand the protest of the gymnasium as deeply as its architectural plans were developed in a segregationist fashion [whatever that means].

Those holed up in Hamilton Hall encouraged neighboring African-Americans to come to the campus and “recruited famous black militants to speak at their rallies.” To the demonstration, the black students and community allies brought an unrivaled passion for the cause. The student-community alliance that forged between students of the SAS and Harlem residents led to widespread growth in white-student support for the cause.

A photo of David Shapiro wearing sunglasses and smoking a cigar in Columbia President Grayson Kirk‘s office was published in the media. Mark Rudd announced that acting dean Henry S. Coleman would be held hostage until the group’s demands were met. Though he was not in his office when the takeover was initiated, Coleman made his way into the building past protesters, went into his office and stated that “I have no control over the demands you are making, but I have no intention of meeting any demand under a situation such as this.”

Along with College administrators William Kahn and Dan Carlinsky, Coleman was detained as a hostage in his office as furniture was placed to keep him from leaving. He had been provided with food while being held and was able to leave 24 hours later, with The New York Times describing his departure from the siege as “showing no sign that he had been unsettled by the experience”

According to “Crisis at Columbia: Report of the Fact-Finding Commission appointed to investigate the Disturbances at Columbia University in April and May 1968”:

“By its final days, the revolt enjoyed both wide and deep support among the students and junior faculty…The grievances of therebels were felt equally by a still larger number, probably a majority of the students…Support for the demonstrators rested upon broad discontent and widespread sympathy for their position.”

However, this statement is problematic, as both WKCR and Spectator conducted polls during the actual event and immediately afterward, and found that while many students sympathized with many of the goals of the demonstration, a majority were opposed to the manner in which things were carried out.

To that end, a group of 300 undergraduates calling themselves the “Majority Coalition” (intended to portray the students involved in the occupation as not representative of the majority of liberal Columbia and Barnard students) organized after several days of the building occupation, in response to what they perceived as administration inaction. This group was made up of student athletes, fraternity members and members of the [engaged portion of the] general undergraduate population. 

Students involved in the protests continued their involvement in protest-politics (probably to this day) in varied forms affecting the movement at large. Their many activities included forming communes and creating urban social organizations. Several Columbia SDS members combined with the New York Black Panther Partyto create the Weathermen (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dorn, et al), a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government.

Columbia became much more liberal in its policies as a result of the student demonstrations and classes were canceled for the rest of the week following the end of the protest. Additionally, a policy was soon established that allowed students to receive passing grades in all classes with no additional work for the remainder of the abridged semester. In the place of traditional class, students held “liberation classes, rallies, [and] concerts outside” which included appearances by Allen Ginsberg and the Grateful Dead. [Where has all the accountability gone? – with respects to Bob Dylan. At Columbia, the administration were now the inmates.]

Columbia suffered quite a bit in the aftermath of the student protest. Applications, endowments, and grants for the university declined significantly in the following years. “It took at least 20 years to fully recover.” The protests left Columbia in a bad spot financially as many potential students chose to attend other universities and some alumni refused to donate any more to the school. [One who did (apparently) attend however, was a graduate student named Barack Hussein Obama [although his Columbia transcript has never been seen and no one who was in the same curriculum has ever reported seeing him. There is however, one picture reportedly showing him on the Columbia campus].

Many believe that protest efforts at Columbia were also responsible for pushing higher education further toward the liberal left. These critics, such as Allan Bloom, a University of Chicago professor, believed, “American universities were no longer places of intellectual and academic debate, but rather places of ‘political correctness’ and liberalism.” How true! Don’t believe me? Read on.

“Emails within a tight circle of academics at an exclusive university just outside Boston founded by American Jews reveal a long-standing and vehement anti-Israel bias and anger at FoxNews and a human rights advocate who renounced her Muslim faith.

Thousands of messages on a Brandeis University ListServ obtained by conservative students and reviewed by were hyperbolic in their condemnation of Israel, regarding the fighting in Gaza and prior conflicts with the Palestinians. Accusations that Israel has committed war crimes and “holocaustic ethnic cleansing” against Palestinians appear in the messages from academics at the school.

In one message from a Brandeis Professor of Sociology urged Israeli academics to sign an “open letter” to “end the illegal occupation in Palestine.” The letter states that “the government of Israel, having provoked the firing of rockets by its rampage through the West Bank, is now using that response as the pretext for an aerial assault on Gaza which has already cost scores of lives.”

It goes on to note that “an atmosphere of hysteria is being deliberately provoked in Israel, and whole communities are being subject to collective punishment, a war crime.” The professor later encouraged participants to read a work titled, “S. African Nobel Laureate Tutu likens Mideast crisis to apartheid.” The one-sided view of the Middle East is not new at the school, founded in 1948, the same year Israel was established, with funding from the American Jewish community.

“Zionist olive trees grow wondrously on Palestinian corpses,” a Political Science Professor wrote in 2007. “In that way, we combine great trees with our own holocaustic ethnic cleansing.” A Brandeis physics professor at the Waltham, Mass., school, wrote in an email that “settlements on the West Bank are armed robbery.”

Some 8,500 emails were uncovered by a Brandeis student and passed on to the founder and chairman of the Voices of Conservative Youth. They were given access to the server after some subscribers were “troubled by the path the list was taking and lent access to a few students” so it could be made public.

A ListServ is a mailing list software that sends one message to all the group’s subscribers. This particular ListServ, titled “Concerned,” was started by faculty members in 2002 “out of concern about possible war with Iraq.” It has more than 90 subscribers, some of which are professors from other universities, and is used to correspond about current news, Israel, Jewish people, America and world affairs in general.

In addition to expressing hatred for Israel, several professors also rage among themselves about conservative values, Fox News and a female African human rights activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who survived genital mutilation as a child in Somalia, renounced her Muslim faith and now crusades against radical Islam. She was slated to receive an honorary doctorate at Brandeis before the ceremony was canceled amid campus protests. Emails reveal where at least some of the faculty stood on the matter.

In March, a Brandeis Professor of English wrote that Ali is “an ignorant, ultra-right-wing extremist, abusively, shockingly vocal in her hatred for Muslim culture and Muslims, a purveyor of the dangerous and imaginary concept, born of European distaste for the influx of immigrants from its former colonies… To call her a ‘woman’s rights activist’ is like calling Squeaky Fromm an environmentalist.’”

[Ignorant, imaginary concept???!!! Has this professor been genitally mutilated? Probably not. Talk about a war on women.]

This English professor’s hate is also directed at FoxNews. In one email, she imagines organizing a crippling boycott of the top-rated cable news network, urging participants to join a “new campaign to weaken the power of FOX” and “write to companies who advertise” on the “poisonous” network.

Another email from the sociology professor urges others to help prevent the cable news network from being awarded Helen Thomas’ former front-row center seat in the White House briefing room [remember – after she was thrown out for an anti-Semitic rant] because it is “not a legitimate news organization” and insists the “real, public news organization” NPR should be given the spot. [They’re all “fellow-travelers” folks.]

But given Brandeis’ roots and tradition, the vitriol directed at Israel is perhaps most shocking. According to its website, Brandeis was founded as a nonsectarian university under the sponsorship of the American Jewish community to “embody its highest ethical and cultural values and to express its gratitude to the United States through the traditional Jewish commitment to education.”

“To see that kind of sentiment, disgusting as it is, is a double-standard (toward) America’s only allies in the Middle East. These sentiments are being sponsored and paid for… imagine how this hurts the Jewish donors to Brandeis University,” noted the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which focuses on racism in America and a history of the Holocaust. “Of course, the very academic feel particularly free to let it all hang out because it’s all covered under rubric of freedom of expression when they’re not held accountable.”

To be absolutely fair, the university’s president has been quick to distance himself from the controversial mailing list. When approached for comment, a Brandeis spokesperson sent a letter Lawrence sent to all faculty staff regarding the issue.

“While we maintain our staunch support of freedom of expression and academic inquiry, some remarks by an extremely small cohort of Brandeis faculty members are abhorrent. Such statements, which include anti-Semitic epithets, personal attacks, denigration of the Catholic faith and the use of crude and vulgar terms in discussions about Israel, do not represent the Brandeis community,” he wrote. “I condemn these statements under no uncertain terms.”

And, at least one professor who found himself on the ListServ appeared to see through the Israel-bashing, and called his ivory tower colleagues on it.

“Let’s not be disingenuous. You guys hate Israel. That’s what unites the group. That’s why it was founded,” a professor of history at the New York-based Fordham University – wrote in a post. “You support BDS and circulate their petitions – a movement led by Omar Barghouti, who not only declared that Israel has no right to exist, but has told a group in San Diego a few months back that Israeli soldiers use Palestinian children for spot target practice and that they use their body parts… I think when progressives lose their center and align with bizarre Islamist groups we are all worse off.”

[By the way, they are all still there.]

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. By their own description, 72% of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15% are conservative, says the study published recently. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50% of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11% as Republicans. The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87% of faculty are liberal and 13% are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.”

Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculties are male and 28 percent female. [Whose war on women?]

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.”

[Almost 20 years later the data is not significantly different. Econ Journal Watch in September 2016 reported a study that looks at faculty voter registration at 40 leading universities and found that, out of 7,243 professors, Democrats outnumber Republicans 3,623 to 314, or by a ratio of 11 1/2 to 1. Out of five departments analyzed by the authors, the field friendliest to conservative scholars is economics, where there are only 4.5 liberal professors for every conservative. Conversely, history is by far the least conservative-friendly department, where liberals outnumber conservatives by a 33 1/2-to-1 ratio. The study comes after a tumultuous few years at American colleges and universities, marked by campus race protests, the disinvitation of conservative speakers and the popularization of phrases such as “trigger warning” and “safe space.”]

“Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The final results showed that faculty hiring to be much more biased against conservatives than the preliminary study indicated.

When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, “The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion.” [How about learning and critical thought?]

Knight said he isn’t aware of “any good evidence” [Define “good”. Deconstruction in full bloom.] that personal views are having an impact on campus policies. “It’s hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college.” He doesn’t provide a source for this claim.”

Then why, if it doesn’t make any difference in educational outcomes, according to Mr. Knight, do universities continue to deny most students’ access to conservatives so as to balance the debate in the university atmosphere. The way things now stand, students are only getting the liberal view, so if it doesn’t matter, there is no reason to deny conservatives an equal place on the faculty – unless it really does matter that liberals maintain their monopoly on “education” and Mr. Knight is lying.

“Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal. In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal!

The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection “even if it raises prices or costs jobs” (88 percent). [Just not their jobs.] What’s more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance actually to the left of the Democrat Party.

Researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities. Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs. The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81%) and social sciences (75%), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51% to 19%) and, absurdly, even business faculty (49% to 39%).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80% of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5% call themselves conservative, the study says. “In general,” says the head of the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, “even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That’s why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective [especially in a meritocracy].”

Their study appears in the March 2014 issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women’s Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.

For comparison, in the liberal bastion of Hollywood – where the politically correct crowd are constantly patting themselves on the back – one would think the war on women would have been won by now – but you would be wrong. With virtually no conservatives in positions of power, the PLDC has managed to place women in only about one-tenth of the major movie/television roles, about one-third of the movie/television character roles and only about one-fourth of the movie-makers are women. [Cry wolf – anyone?]

Recent campus controversies have reinforced the left-wing faculty image. The University of Colorado is reviewing its tenure system after Professor Ward Churchill created an uproar by likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis. Harvard’s faculty of arts and sciences voted no confidence in the university’s president, Lawrence Summers, after he privately wondered whether women had the same natural ability as men in science and math.

Next time: Dumbing down America.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s