RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mike-moons-missouri-campus-intellectual-diversity-act/

The current atmosphere of crisis and conflict on America’s college campuses was kicked off by the troubles at the University of Missouri–Columbia (“Mizzou”) during the 2015–2016 academic year. Many will remember the infamous video of Professor Melissa Click calling for “some muscle” to prevent journalists from covering the protests, a harbinger of the campus free-speech crisis. In the wake of Mizzou’s 2015 debacle, university enrollment cratered, with a modest recovery beginning only recently.

It is in the interest of the citizens of Missouri to find a long-term solution to this problem — a way to encourage all sides on our divided college campuses to freely to speak their minds. We need to regularize civil debate over the issues that divide us. If students were accustomed to hosting and hearing civil debates over issues like immigration, abortion, religious liberty, health insurance, and criminal-justice reform, the effect would be to normalize disagreement and lower the emotional temperature on campus.

By introducing House Bill No. 2177, the Missouri Campus Intellectual Diversity Act, Representative Mike Moon aims to do exactly that. Moon’s bill is modeled on a proposal I made here at NRO last year. (See that proposal for a detailed explanation of the concept.) This proposal has been endorsed by the National Association of Scholars, and by Mark Bauerlein at Minding the Campus. Essentially, Moon’s bill instructs the state university system to set up a series of debates, public forums, and individual lectures that will explore our most hotly debated public-policy issues from competing perspectives. If experts willing and able to present and defend both sides of a given controversy are in short supply on campus, outside speakers could be invited in. Videos of public-policy debates arranged by the university would be made available to the public. Moon’s bill also instructs universities to keep detailed event calendars. This will provide a snapshot, so to speak, of the state of intellectual diversity on campus, at least with regard to public-policy events.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/04/like-david-mccullough-americans-ignorance-of-history-should-keep-us-up-at-night/

In academia, including teacher education, an illiberal secular fundamentalism severs connections between schools and religion, morality, and knowledge.

David McCullough, the well-known historian, couldn’t sleep. Of course, people in their 80s often experience some form of insomnia, his doctor, Thomas H. Lee, told him. But the pea under McCullough’s mattress was metaphorical, not physical.

The author of Pulitzer Prize-winning biographies of presidents John Adams and Harry S. Truman, among other highly praised works, tossed and turned. Why? Because public figures don’t know American history, don’t understand that despite uncertainties and challenges, “Things worked out — because individuals behaved in certain ways with integrity and resilience. They figured out how to work with other people, and they tried to do the right things.”

So wrote Lee, with his patient’s permission, in a Wall Street Journal commentary nearly two years ago. By the time McCullough spoke at the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival in Washington, D.C., last Labor Day weekend, his anxiety about historical ignorance had expanded from our leaders to the whole country.

McCullough’s main topic was his latest book, “The Pioneers: The Heroic Story of the Settlers Who Brought American Ideals West.” But he confessed that he worried American history isn’t taught much anymore, that subject matter in general does not receive proper attention.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/03/universities-are-complicit-in-1619-projects-disgusting-swindle/

David Randall is Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars.

Of course Hannah-Jones doesn’t welcome pushback. But we expect better of our universities. They shouldn’t give their intellectual and moral authority to her gimcrack wares.

The backers of the New York Times’ 1619 Project don’t believe their hate-reading of American history can stand up to examination in the light of day. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from their full flight from critics across the political spectrum.

Proponents of the 1619 Project—believers that the real founding of the country came with the landing of African slaves in Jamestown in 1619—are determined to foist their ideas on children who don’t have enough information to argue back. They’ll force teachers to teach its falsehoods as the only acceptable history. They’ll arrange “dialogues” throughout the nation, where their advocates say six sorts of nonsense and their carefully selected “interlocutors” reply, You’re so very right! But they’ll never allow for an open debate against an informed opponent.

They know the arguments behind the 1619 Project would fall to pieces if they did. So they carefully arrange matters so that no one ever gets a chance to say that the emperor has no clothes.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/dh-wednesday-lead-hate-america-project-david-horowitz/

Editorial Note: It’s time to recognize that the current ideologies of the progressive Left and the Democrat Party – Cultural Marxism and Identity Politics – pose existential threats to America’s survival.

America is unique among nations in being founded on a set of ideas and values rather than having a shared “identity” based on “blood and soil.” The founding of America during the revolutionary era 1776 – 1787 was based on principles that provide the sinews of our national identity. They are what create a unity out of the diverse peoples that have settled and occupied this country since its founding. They have been the inspirational force that enabled America to abolish slavery, become a global symbol of freedom, and provide the world’s chief bulwark against global tyrannies.

It is this inspirational memory that the political left has set out to erase and destroy. The most disturbing manifestation of this sinister aggression is the so-called “1619 Project,” the brainchild of a staff writer at The New York Times, named Nikole Hannah-Jones. It is supported by The Pulitzer Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution and the nation’s cultural elite. Six months after its launch, the “1619 Project” Is already a curriculum in 3,500 public high schools in all 50 states.[1] Given the extreme leftwing nature of the teacher unions and the public education establishment, while disturbing this is hardly surprising.[2]

The “1619 Project” is described by Times editorial board member Mara Gay in the following words: “In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.”[3] In a formal statement, the Times editorial board elaborated: “The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”[4]

https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/01/31/complaints-on-antisemitism-executive-order-highlight-climate-on-campus/

The new Executive Order extending protections to Jewish students under the 1964 Civil Rights Act has generated a number of complaints to the Department of Education. At Columbia University, a complaint alleges “pervasive and ongoing” discrimination against Jewish students, and “a targeted harassment and discrimination campaign” by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and other BDS groups.

At UCLA, a complaint alleges that a speaker described Israel as a racist entity, denied its right to exist, and stated that its supporters were white supremacists. A complaint filed on behalf of Hillel of Georgia alleges that Georgia Tech permitted discrimination against an individual who was denied entry to a Young Democratic Socialists of America event because of her identity.

Central to the growing number of complaints are allegations that denials of Israel’s right to exist are de facto antisemitic, by reference to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is referred to in the recent Executive Order. Another issue is harassment and disruption of public events held by Jewish and other students.

The complaints come as still more evidence has appeared regarding the politicization of classrooms at all levels by BDS supporters. A new report by the AMCHA Initiative analyzed syllabi from 50 university courses on the Arab-Israeli conflict. On average, instructors who support BDS assigned an average of 78% of readings by fellow BDS supporters, in contrast to only 17% from non-BDS supporting instructors. The qualitative and quantitative contrasts demonstrate decisively that college courses are being deliberately politicized.

The problem of BDS supporters in the classroom is not restricted to higher education. Support for BDS and antisemitism in the Newton, Massachusetts, public schools has been long documented. A new incident at the private Ethical Culture Fieldston School in Riverdale, New York, saw a BDS-supporting teacher host a speaker who alleged that Israelis, who were “the victims of the Holocaust and violence have become perpetrators of violence against Palestinians.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-selective-editing-of-american-history/

Today, the president of the University of California, Janet Napolitano, decided to remove the name of John Boalt from the law school building at the University of California at Berkeley. Boalt undeniably made racist remarks opposing Chinese immigration to California in the late 19th century which added to the forces that results in the passage of the infamous Chinese Exclusion Act.

I have taught at Berkeley Law (as we are supposed to call it, rather than Boalt Hall, as it was known for decades) for 27 years (unbelievably to both conservatives and liberals). I think that Boalt was flat wrong in his views and that the nation erred in its policies on immigration during this time. If I had my way, we would increase legal immigration even now by a factor of 2x and 3x, rather than considering its restriction.

But I am saddened to see my great university following the herd of other colleges that are selectively editing American history. The answer to the sad moments of the past is not to remove people and events from our collective memory, but to remember them and learn from them. Shall we next re-sculpt Mount Rushmore because Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and Roosevelt liked war, and remove the Washington and Jefferson monuments from the National Mall? Closer to home, shall we end the Jefferson lectures at Berkeley for the same reasons? Shall we edit out the names of chancellors and university leaders who worked on the nuclear bomb because the politically sensitive on campuses today reject that WWII ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hecklers-veto-at-georgetown-law-11580343235?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Georgetown Law students shamed the university last semester when they exercised a heckler’s veto against a Trump Administration official. Now they’re claiming that disciplining those who disrupted the event “would have a chilling effect on free speech and expression across campus.”

The controversy began last fall when Georgetown Law invited Kevin McAleenan, then the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, to speak on immigration law and policy. Hundreds of law students signed a petition accusing Mr. McAleenan of implementing a “white nationalist-inspired” agenda and demanding his disinvitation. When the event proceeded anyway, student protesters prevented Mr. McAleenan from speaking.

Georgetown’s speech and expression policy states that students can face discipline for “disrupting events to prohibit other students from hearing the views of an invited speaker,” but the law school won’t say whether the hecklers were punished.

Instead the law school has convened an advisory committee to consider, among other things, the “response to disruptive protests during an event, and follow-up disciplinary or other administrative actions,” the school said in a statement. Georgetown University Law Center Dean William Treanor also asked the committee to consider whether there should be “any constraints on which outside speakers may be invited to speak on the Law Center campus,” the co-chairs wrote in an email to students.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/civilization-is-history-at-yale-11580342259?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Yale announced last week that it will stop teaching its famous survey course, “Introduction to Art History: Renaissance to the Present.” Taught for decades by Vincent Scully, one of Yale’s most celebrated professors, the course was a riveting introduction to pulse of humanism.

It is being cashiered for all the usual reasons. Its focus is too white, too European, too male, too “problematic,” as Tim Barringer, chairman of the art history department, puts it. Mr. Barringer will substitute a course that challenges such Eurocentrism and promises to be very up-to-date. Mr. Barrginer says he’ll introduce a “global” perspective. Naturally, he writes, the course will consider art in relation to “questions of gender, class and ‘race.’ ” (Why the scare quotes around “race”? Is today one of those days when race is only a social construct?) It will also ponder art’s “involvement with Western capitalism.”

Globalism, gender, class, race, capitalism. Has Mr. Barringer neglected any trendy concern? How about the Greta Thunberg gambit? On it! Art’s “relationship with climate change will be a ‘key theme,’ ” the Yale Daily News reports.

The Daily News adds that the removal of “Introduction to Art History” is “the latest response to student uneasiness over an idealized Western ‘canon’—a product of an overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male cadre of artists.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/diversity_by_subtraction.html

In the latest chapter of the Left’s ongoing culture war against the West, Yale University has announced that it is eliminating its popular introductory art history course because of the “overwhelming” whiteness, maleness, and straightness of the artists who comprise the Western canon. 

This spring, “Introduction to Art History: Renaissance to the Present,” will be taught for the last time. The final installment of the course, “will seek to question the idea of Western art itself — a marked difference from the course’s focus at its inception.” According to the syllabus, the course will consider art in relation to “questions of gender, class and race” and will discuss its involvement with Western capitalism. Its relationship with climate change will also be a “key theme.” 

Commenting on Yale’s decision, Robby Soave, senior editor at Reason, noted that, “Art students who wish to master the Western canon will still find plenty of other courses that satisfy their interests. But the removal of the introductory course makes it difficult for non-majors with a casual interest in the subject to study it.”

That would appear to be the goal.