RUTHFULLY YOURS

Author’s note: A week ago I received an invitation to a fundraiser for the Daily Californian Foundation, which raises private money to support the UC Berkeley student newspaper.

However, after recent violent attacks on Milo, Pam Geller, David Horowitz, and Ann Coulter, among others, I felt that I could no longer donate to a newspaper which had apparently abandoned its commitment to free speech, and wanted to share my thoughts in this regard with its staff. As they never responded, I thought publication of my letter in FrontPageMag, founded by a UC Berkeley alumnus and former instructor, might get their attention, and hopefully lead to some “second thoughts” at the Daily Cal:

Thank you for your email and kind invitation.

However, I am too disappointed and embarrassed by what I read in the Daily Californian recently about Free Speech at Berkeley to attend your event.

It is appalling to see articles, opeds, and editorials which advocate violence against those with dissenting opinions in a student newspaper that left campus during the Free Speech Movement in order to maintain editorial independence and commit itself to free speech.

Therefore, I can’t in good conscience support the Daily Cal unless and until it unequivocally disavows and rejects politically correct positions which run counter to principles of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of debate, academic freedom and free-thinking in general.

It makes me very sad, because I enjoyed working on the paper when I was a student. But I have been truly horrified by what I have been reading online in the Daily Cal about Ann Coulter, Milo, David Horowitz (a Cal alumnus and former instructor!) and the persecution of conservatives and Republicans on campus.

The paper right now seems to me like a totalitarian propaganda sheet out of a dystopian novel or movie, full of ugly denunciations rather than thoughtful or intelligent journalism. Intolerance would be an understatement to describe the horror show I’ve seen on campus and in the pages of the Daily Cal online. Nightmare might be a better word choice.

So, I regret to say that I am ashamed to be a Cal alumnus, and especially a Daily Cal alumnus, at this time.

Let me know when you have an editor-in-chief and staff who are proud to declare their support for the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, and I’ll reconsider the issue.

Until that time, I must decline your invitation on principle.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Laurence A. Jarvik, BA 1977

1 “Northwestern doubles its programming on ‘deconstructing masculinity'”
“The first event of this academic year in November will tackle ‘toxic masculinity’…. The program … started in spring 2016 with a grant from the U.S. Justice Department.”
https://tinyurl.com/yd966sd4

2. “Swarthmore students burn American flag on Columbus Day”
https://tinyurl.com/y8b9f74p

3. “Students storm library, shut down College Republicans meeting”
https://tinyurl.com/ydat4chq

4. “Marquette University hosts ‘Black Male Appreciation Luncheon'”
https://tinyurl.com/yapqnozh

5. “Grizzly Bigotry At The University of Montana”
https://tinyurl.com/yd6cszld

6. “200 pro-life posters torn down at Loyola Marymount University”
https://tinyurl.com/yaym9ykg

7. Marquette University, a Jesuit-run university, to host LGBT ‘Pride Prom’ in campus ballroom
https://tinyurl.com/yck7z28c

8. “Columbia University Pledges $100 Million To Campus Staff ‘Diversity'”
https://tinyurl.com/yahmdxa7

9. Eastern Illinois University’s ‘Lincoln Hall’ eyed for name change
https://tinyurl.com/y7qhvb6d

10. “Hillary Clinton in talks with Columbia University to take on professor role”
“One option under discussion is an esteemed “University Professor” role that would allow Clinton to lecture across a range of schools and departments without the requirement of a strict course load, one source said.”
https://tinyurl.com/y8v9ubk2

11. “University Refuses Research On Growing Numbers Of Trans People Who Want ‘To Go Back'”
https://tinyurl.com/yb5bqt4p

12. “Students at Cambridge University are being warned that they may have to study books with upsetting content – the plays of William Shakespeare. Lecturers claim the advice is to protect undergraduates’ mental health, even though several of the Bard’s works are known for their depiction of sex and violence.”
https://tinyurl.com/y7puxlxs

It’s become almost a punch line that the academic left seeks to label as “white supremacist” any idea they don’t like—and are unable to rebut. But a Duke University professor’s attempt to smear a giant of the economics profession hasn’t been very funny. Now the question is whether it was all the result of a simple mistake.

In July this column described the reaction to “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America,” by Duke’s Nancy MacLean. The book, which your humble correspondent has not read, is an attack on Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan, a pioneer in “public choice” theory, which holds that government officials act out of self-interest just like everyone else. Ms. MacLean’s, umm… contribution to the Buchanan story is her argument that the Nobelist was the author of a “diabolical” secret plan to subvert democracy and favor rich white people. The work is now a finalist for a National Book Award.

Writing at the leftist website Vox of all places, professors from George Washington University and Johns Hopkins have flagged various alleged errors in the book. Other critiques have appeared in the Washington Post, among other places. NPR for its part had to explain to readers why its editors selected a novelist, rather than a historian, to review the book.

Now historian Phillip Magness says that, lacking direct evidence that Buchanan was a white supremacist, the book relies on alleged commentary he contributed to a now-defunct segregationist newspaper. But Mr. Magness says that the source on which Ms. MacLean relied erred in the citation. Mr. Magness reports that Buchanan had actually contributed to the anti-segregationist Richmond Times-Dispatch, which still exists today.

Ms. MacLean said via email that Mr. Magness is “wrong about the facts of Virginia history” but has not responded to a follow-up question asking specifically which of the publications carried Buchanan’s work. In the meantime, this column has been able to confirm that Buchanan co-authored a two-part series in the anti-segregationist Times-Dispatch in April of 1959 along with Warren Nutter, his colleague in the University of Virginia economics department, where Buchanan served as chairman.

The Magness report follows a critique of the book by Ms. MacLean’s fellow professor at Duke, Michael Munger:

Early in Democracy in Chains, in a preface entitled “A Quiet Deal in Dixie,” MacLean recounts an exchange, a conversation really, between two conservatives. One is the president of a major southern university, the other is an academic worker intent on reverse-engineering a repressive sociopolitical order in America, working from the ground up, using shadowy methods and discredited theories.

The academic writes a proposal for a research center where these ideas can be given a pestilential foothold, a source of viral infection hidden in a legitimate academic setting. The goal, as MacLean tells it, was to begin a Fabian war to re-establish a repressive, plutocratic society ruled by oligarchs. MacLean has actually examined the founding documents, the letters in this exchange, and cites the shadowy academic as saying: “I can fight this [democracy] . . . I want to fight this.” CONTINUE AT SITE

A speaking engagement featuring gay conservative James Merse was cancelled by the New York University College Republicans because of his association with “an anti-Islamic hate group,” according to the organization.

Fox News reports that Merse, a former Progressive who is now a Daily Caller contributor and Trump supporter, had reached out to colleges and universities in the northern New Jersey area offering to speak for free. The NYU College Republicans responded and scheduled Merse to speak at a club meeting today — until he received a message Monday night informing him that the group decided to cancel based on his association with ACT for America, the nationwide grassroots organization founded by outspoken anti-sharia patriot Brigitte Gabriel.

The club’s message to Merse read, in part:

Hey James, unfortunately as we have a lot of press on our a– right now, along with the administration (due to recent white nationalist events held on campus) and upon review of one of your group memberships (ACT for America) we thought it would be safer to not go through with this speaker event.

“It doesn’t make sense to me,” Merse told Fox News. “It’s just another instance of College Republicans not standing up for free speech and not standing up for each other.”

A NYU College Republican spokesperson told Fox News that “[t]he leadership decided it would be best not to associate with an organization that is widely regarded to be an anti-Islamic hate group.”

Widely-regarded as a hate group? By whom?

“Our club leadership did our own research on ACT for America,” the spokesperson continued, “and came to its decision using multiple sources, including the [Southern Poverty Law Center], Anti-Defamation League, multiple news articles from numerous sources and comments made by the group’s leadership.”

Ah, the SPLC. Now it begins to make perfect sense, since the SPLC is a leftist hate group that demonizes conservatives like David Horowitz and Daniel Greenfield as anti-Muslim haters. It has been given legitimacy by a complicit leftist media as an authority on which organizations in the country must be ostracized.

Merse’s perception of Islam was shaped by his experience as the son of a 9/11 cleanup worker. As a boy he saw his father come home “smelling like burnt hair and dusty chalk,” and it inspired him to speak out as an adult. “That day had a really big impact on me as a 9 year old, and it really shifted my thinking,” he said. “These Islamic terrorists really hate us.” Indeed, but the Southern Poverty Law Center believes that the likes of Horowitz, Greenfield, and Gabriel are the real haters.

NYU spokesman John Beckman sent a statement to Fox News, which defended the school’s commitment to free speech: “The free exchange of ideas is a bedrock principle at NYU, and if students or faculty members invite a speaker to campus, that speaker will be permitted to speak, other than in the rare instances in which there is a threat to public safety,” the statement read. “It is worth noting that last year, campus groups invited Charles Murray, Gavin McInnes, and Lucian Wintrich, and all of them spoke at NYU.”

Nonetheless, Merse called the NYU College Republicans “irresponsible” and he said he believes the group caved to political correctness.

It’s disappointing, to put it mildly, that the NYU College Republicans took the SPLC condemnation of ACT for America as gospel. Merse says he’s “very proud” to be a part of Gabriel’s organization. “I stand against Islamic sharia and that’s why I joined.” As a former lefty and an openly gay conservative, his voice can make a valuable contribution to the national conversation regarding the Islamic threat.

English literature undergrads at Cambridge University were warned about a lecture on two plays by William Shakespeare that would include references to sexual violence and sexual assault. The warnings were intended to give students who may be upset about those topics an excuse to miss the lecture.

Mary Beard, a professor of classics, called that approach “fundamentally dishonest.”

Independent:

Beard said previously: “We have to encourage students to be able to face that, even when they find they’re awkward and difficult for all kinds of good reasons.”

David Crilly, artistic director at The Cambridge Shakespeare Festival, said: “If a student of English Literature doesn’t know that Titus Andronicus containts [sic] scenes of violence they shouldn’t be on the course.

“This degree of sensitivity will inevitably curtail academic freedom. If the academic staff are concerned they imght [sic] say something students find uncomfortable they will avoid doing it.”

Another Cambridge lecturer told Newsnight that trigger warnings had been added to the timetable “without discussion”, while another admitted they “self-censored” texts on their course to avoid causing offence to some students.

A Cambridge University spokesman said that the English Faculty did not have a policy on trigger warnings but “some lecturers indicate that some sensitive material will be covered in a lecture by informing the English Faculty Admin staff”.

“This is entirely at the lecturer’s own discretion and is in no way indicative of a Faculty wide policy,” they added.

Anyone who is “triggered” by fictional violence will not be able to function in the real world. But it hardly matters. Trigger warnings are not meant to protect students as much as they are used to protect faculty members. They are terrified of speaking about controversial subjects lest the school administration penalize them for it.

But really, now – Shakespeare? Perhaps someone might explain how anyone can get a degree in English literature without completely absorbing the Bard’s plays and sonnets. The plays themselves are retellings of legends and myths that most of Shakespeare’s contemporaries were familiar with. But from our perspective and the distance of time, the lessons and values that Shakespeare was highlighting represent the best that Western civilization has to offer.

And that’s the real problem, isn’t it? Trigger warnings aside, this is just another episode in the assault on our shared civilization. To destroy Western civilization means destroying the culture that nurtured it. Making Shakespeare unavailable is another nail in the coffin by those whose job should be to protect him.

During a “Bridging the Divides” forum at the University of Delaware on Tuesday, former vice president Joe Biden and Ohio governor John Kasich were asked about free speech on college campuses — and Biden had the far better answer.

“Liberals have a short memory . . . we hurt ourselves badly when we don’t allow speech to take place,” Biden said, according to a tweet from former CNN reporter Peter Hamby. “You should be able to listen to another point of view, as virulent as it may be, and reject it or expose it.”

Kasich’s answer? That he wouldn’t “let one of these hate speech speakers come.”

That was the wrong answer. Sure, Kasich may have been trying to come off as Sensitive Moderate Republican Guy, but he really came off as someone who doesn’t understand the responsibility that we all have as people who live in a country where our speech is free.

On the one hand, Kasich just may not understand how many people college students have tried to silence because they considered their views to be “hate speech” for a whole host of reasons. For example: Just last month, students at Berkeley tried to silence conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, claiming that he’s a “white supremacist.” (Note: Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew.)

On the other hand, though, is this: It doesn’t f&*%$#@ matter what a speaker says. As Biden said, students should be able to handle hearing all speech — even “virulent” speech — and know how to “reject it or expose it” if necessary. After all, that’s how it works in the real world.

Yep. Believe it or not, there actually are people out there in the real world who say hateful things. What’s more, they actually do have a constitutional right to say them, which means that anyone who gets offended cannot choose to deal with that offense by silencing it. They have to know how to deal with it in other ways, and we should be allowing students to practice and develop these skills while in school rather than forcing them to live in a bubble that stunts that kind of growth.

The truth is, we live in a place where hate speech is protected speech — and we’re very, very lucky that’s the case.

The alternative, after all, is living in a country where the government gets to decide what kind of speech is and is not okay . . . and you don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to see how that would be a bad thing.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/science-behind-implicit-bias-15527.htmlHeather Mac Donald joins City Journal associate editor Seth Barron to discuss the dubious scientific and statistical bases of the trendy academic theory known as “implicit bias.” The implicit association test (IAT), first introduced in 1998, uses a computerized response-time test to measure an individual’s bias, particularly regarding race.

Despite scientific challenges to the test’s validity, the implicit-bias idea has taken firm root in popular culture and in the media. Police forces and corporate HR departments are spending millions every year reeducating employees on how to recognize their presumptive hidden prejudices.

Heather discusses the problems with implicit bias, the impact that the concept is having on academia and in the corporate world, and the real reasons for racial disparities in educational achievement and income levels.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and author of the New York Times bestseller The War on Cops. Her article in the Autumn 2017 issue of City Journal is entitled, “Are We All Unconscious Racists?”

A recent West Point graduate, still serving in the U.S. Army, shocked admirers of the venerable American military academy with his candidly pro-Communist views. How could such an institution, founded on “duty, honor, country,” produce such a student?https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/18/on-the-corruption-of-the-military-academies/

A junior Army officer who states his anti-American opinions so openly may seem novel, but we should quell our surprise. After all, his views are indistinguishable from many of his peers at other distinguished universities. The craziness so common at other American college campuses is now demonstrated to have infected even our military service academies. We should not be surprised, but we are right to be outraged.

I have some experience here. I taught at the United States Air Force Academy from 1996 until 1999, and in addition I’ve taught at other civilian universities.

The Red Cadet scandal hurls a major national pillar—one that has manfully held out against much of the progressive revolution in politics—against the leading advocate of progressivism today, the universities. At stake is the question of the practical purpose of higher education and the ethos necessary to support it. Thus, the real focus of the recent condemnation of disciplinary standards by a former West Point faculty member and graduate was, in fact, the decline of the institution he had known, and not the repellent, even subversive views of a recent graduate. In his estimation, the academy has fallen away from its purpose.

The military, with its service academies—West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the Coast Guard Academy—have understood this purpose mostly implicitly: military officers must be loyal to the country. That’s why soldiers swear an oath to the Constitution. Alumni of other colleges may pledge financial support to their alma mater but no such serious and legally binding oath is expected of them.

To state the issue in dramatic terms: Does a distinguished general and scholar such as National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster belong more to the traditions of West Point and the military, or to those of the progressive academic world?

Yet, civilian universities today all too often require de facto oaths to the latest tenets of progressivism, from politically correct language (by which pronoun would you like to be addressed?) to suppression of robust debate. Graduates of these institutions may as well be goose-stepping in ever-tightening mental circles—a herd of independent minds, as it were. Whether in promising careers, personal fulfillment, or graduate school placement, the focus of these schools is on individual professional achievement. Even a the dubious focus on “leadership” at some institutions betrays a thoughtlessness about whom is being led and to what purpose.

Countering both formal and informal pressure from society at large, the service academies take great pains to produce men (and now women) with the character required to be officers. These institutions are vocational schools (until recently, they were engineering schools), but the vocation they train students to fulfill is not one meant merely to fulfill those students in their personal calling, it is a vocation that demands service to the nation. That requires qualities ignored, defined differently, or even defined contrarily by civilian institutions.