RUTHFULLY YOURS

As revealed in recent congressional testimony, Students for Justice in Palestine is a campus front for Hamas terrorists. SJP’s propaganda activities are orchestratedand funded by a Hamas front group, American Muslims for Palestine, whose chairman is Hatem Bazian and whose principals are former officers of the Holy Land Foundation and other Islamic “charities” previously convicted of funneling money to Hamas. The report and posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign titled Stop University Support for Terrorists. Images of the posters that appeared at Chicago, DePaul, and other campuses may be viewed at www.stopuniversitysupportforterrorists.org.

University of Chicago:

The University of Chicago is home to a highly active SJP chapter that hosts frequent events and speakers to promote the Hamas-supported and funded BDS movement against Israel. These speakers include BDS movement founder Omar Barghouti who condoned anti-Israel terrorism in his address to students. SJP also hosts a yearly “Nakba Week” during which they commemorate the “catastrophe” that was the founding of Israel. UC’s SJP chapter is also known for disrupting pro-Israel events and speakers and recently threatened Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid who came to speak on U. Chicago’s campus about the oppression of Palestinians by the theocratic terrorist regimes in the West Bank and Gaza

In recent years, a coalition callings itself U of C Divest has formed on campus and gained widespread support among other student organizations. The coalition succeeded in passing a BDS resolution in Chicago’s student government. During the debate over the measure, an amendment supporting the continued self-determination of the Jewish people and the existence of Israel was proposed and rejected. The coalition has also pressured UC’s trustees to divest the university’s investments from Israel by delivering over 300 signed letters to the Investment Committee and making its case in the campus paper, the Chicago Maroon.

Supporting Evidence:

In June 2017, the U. Of C. Divest coalition proudly announced that they had delivered 300 signed letters to the Investment Committee of the U. Chicago Board of Trustees that demanded that the university divest from “Israeli apartheid”—thus promoting the Hamas supported and funded BDS movement against Israel. The coalition also demanded that the Board create a “Socially Responsible Investment Committee.”

On May 18, 2017, the Chicago Maroon published an op-ed by a Ph.D. student urging the campus administration to take action against David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center for placing posters on campus that exposed the links between SJP and the anti-Israel terror group Hamas. The op-ed urged the administration to silence Horowitz, stating “In comments to The Maroon last year, David Horowitz said that the University should hold him personally responsible for the posters. So why haven’t they?… In an era when mosques are being burned down across the United States week after week and where students who wear hijabs are spat on and yelled at every day across the city, shouldn’t confronting anti-Muslim bigotry be a priority? If the University is serious about protecting its students and employees, shouldn’t it address the David Horowitz Freedom Center and demand the group cease and desist from its repeated attacks on University students and employees?” The op-ed did not consider the view that the Freedom Center’s posters presented important facts and information and that universities should be open to a diversity of viewpoints. Or that in America we are governed by a Bill of Rights that guarantees our right to express opinions that terrorist sympathizers and activists might not agree with.

During May 2017, UC SJP again celebrated “Nakba Week”on campus. “Nakba” is the Arabic word for “catastrophe” which Hamas and its allies use to refer to the creation of Israel. Social media advertisements for the Week stated, “The 1948 expulsion of over 700,000 natives from Palestine is referred to by Palestinians as “al-Nakba” (“the catastrophe”). Understanding the Nakba as an ongoing process inherent to settler colonialism is crucial in understanding everything from the illegal occupation to the refugee crisis to the fight for equal rights within modern-day Israel.” But the only actual “settler colonialism” in the Middle East is the historic conquest of the region by the Arabs.

In April 2017, the U. of C. Divest coalition held an event to promote the BDS boycott against Israel and to encourage university trustees to divest from Israeli companies titled “BDS 101: #TelltheTrustees.” The coalition also created and posted a “fact sheet” on social media that promotes Hamas propaganda and misinformation about Israel. One claim states, “In Gaza, Palestinians live with the threat of regular Israeli bombing and ground invasions, which often have civilian casualty rates as high as 70% according to the UN. In the West Bank, Palestinians are constantly harassed and attacked at checkpoints by the Israeli military, who face practical immunity for killing innocent Palestinians.”

The Chicago Maroon, the independent campus newspaper, published a letter to the editor in April 2017 promoting the genocidal and Hamas-inspired and funded BDS movement against Israel. The letter repeated Hamas propaganda lies, asserting that Israel is “a system of rule fully comparable to South African Apartheid” and accused Israel of “steal[ing] Palestinian land, bomb[ing] Palestinian homes, kidnap[ping] Palestinian children, deny[ing] Palestinians access to resources, harass[ing] Palestinians at checkpoints, and imprison[ing] Palestinians without charge.”

On January 25, 2017, SJP at the University of Chicago hosted an event titled BDS 101: Trump and Palestinian Human Rights. The event promoted the Hamas-supported BDS movement against Israel.

Campus police have opened a hate-crime investigation into the David Horowitz Freedom Center after its informational posters were circulated around UC Berkeley exposing various radical students and faculty as “terrorist supporters.”

The probe comes as Berkeley shuts down the planned “Free Speech Week” that was to have gotten underway Sunday. Free Speech Week was to be hosted by Milo Yiannopoulos, whose speech on the campus in February was shut down by the violent left-wing radicals of Antifa, the pretended anti-fascist activists. The environment on campus at that time and now is like a scene out of the science fiction novel, Fahrenheit 451, in which authorities organize the extinguishing of free expression instead of protecting it. At Yiannopoulos’s speech and other conservative campus events, Berkeley campus police have at times stood by and done nothing as conservatives were physically assaulted, or in some cases, made it easier for leftists to batter conservatives.

Of course the idea of “hate crimes” rests on shaky ground. If one commits a crime, what does it matter if the person did so on the basis of “hate”? A murder victim is just as dead if the murderer convinced himself he was acting out of love.

In canceling Free Speech Week campus officials cited security concerns, but those are the very concerns campus officials gave rise to by aligning themselves with the communist thugs of Antifa and By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). Yiannopoulos has vowed to move forward with Free Speech Week but it is unclear how much he will be able to get done in and around the campus.

The cancelation also means the September 25 premier of America Under Siege: Antifa, the latest film from Dangerous Documentaries (a project of the Capital Research Center, this writer’s employer), at Berkeley has been withdrawn.

“The disruption of the film’s premier is extremely disappointing,” said CRC President Scott Walter. “Worse, it is a major blow to the First Amendment right to free speech. Let’s be clear: Antifa shut down a film screening criticizing their own extremism by using fear.”

The posters in question name Kumars Salehi, Judith Butler, and Hatem Bazian and nine other individuals as supporters of terrorism on the consciousness-raising posters that UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ ordered torn down.

According to the Canary Mission website, Salehi is a graduate student in German literature and culture at Berkeley. Salehi supports the dissolution of the State of Israel and is a member of the terrorist front group Students for Justice in Palestine and the BDS movement. He agrees with the absurd claim of Columbia University professor Joseph Massad that “Zionism and white nationalist anti-Semitism have historically been allies.”

Butler is the Maxine Elliott Professor of Comparative Literature at Berkeley, a BDS movement leader, and a member of the anti-Israel Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) advisory committee. Butler has charactered Muslim terrorist groups as legitimate political players, saying she sees “Hamas [and] Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left [that are] very important.”

The corruption of American higher education has been in the news a lot in the last few years. “Snowflakes” and “safe spaces,” crowds of thugs shutting down conservative speakers, craven administrators caving in to demands of activist students and faculty have become increasingly common since the rise of Donald Trump sparked a “resistance” movement. Even progressives who have run afoul of campus Robespierres are writing books about free speech now that their revolutionary children have started devouring their own. What David Horowitz has been warning about in his books and speeches for more than thirty years — the ideological hijacking of the university and the betrayal of its traditional mission — has finally grabbed the national spotlight.

The essays in his latest book, The Left in the University, are indispensable for anyone who wants to understand how we got to this pass.

The first chapter, “The Post-Modern Academy,” is a succinct analysis of the left’s takeover of the university. He starts with one of the most publicized and representative incidents that illustrates how far our campuses have descended into preposterous political correctness and left-wing shibboleths. Ward Churchill was the University of Colorado professor who called the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks “little Eichmanns,” and whose exposure in 2005 led to a national scandal when his academic and personal frauds were revealed. What is less well-known is the enthusiasm that many universities had shown in inviting Churchill to speak at their campuses — 40 invitations before the scandal broke — despite his vicious anti-Americanism and shoddy scholarship. As Horowitz explains, such views were “far from obscure to his academic colleagues. They reflected views comparing America to Nazi Germany that were part of the intellectual core of his academic work.” The widespread agreement with such nonsense implicated not just one rogue college professor, but “the academic culture itself.”

How did such a consensus of belief in ideas more at home in the pages Pravda or Granma happen? The Gramscian “long march through the institution” on the part of Sixties radicals began the redefinition of academic work from a search for truth according to professional norms, to a political activism that in the name of “relevance” and “social justice” shaped research and teaching to confirm leftist ideology and discredit whatever alternatives students might believe. These new academic departments and programs like Women’s Studies and Black Studies, Horowitz writes, “maintained no pretense of including intellectually diverse viewpoint or pursuing academic inquiries unconnected to the conclusions they might reach.”

That these new “disciplines” were political rather than academic was obvious in their creation, which resulted from political protests and sometimes threats of violence, most famously at Cornell, where in 1969 black radicals with loaded shotguns occupied the administration building. Soon, Horowitz continues, other “studies” like Post-Colonial Studies and Social Justice Studies proliferated to promote “narrowly one-sided political agendas,” and create “institutional settings for political indoctrination” and the “exposition and development of radical theory, and education and training of a radical cadre and the recruitment of students to radical causes.” Moreover, their claims to be pursuing “social justice” or “equality” have created an end-justifies-the-means rationalization, a “logical consequence of decades of university pandering to radical intimidators and campus criminals who regularly assault property, persons and reputations” with charges of racism, sexism, or even rape. “If the ideas are correct, it’s okay to silence anyone who disagrees.” In the last few years this phenomenon has become public knowledge, as Antifa thugs have disrupted campus events. Way back in 1998, Horowitz presciently called such behavior “brown-shirt activism.”

Horowitz in his essays frequently makes an important point: it’s not just the ideological prejudices of this or that faculty member, but a whole institutional, professional, and administrative apparatus that has made possible today’s overwhelmingly leftist and progressive university.

For example, the problem of conservative speakers being underrepresented at campus events is not a dearth of interest among students. At Vanderbilt, a conservative student group called Wake Up America was formed to invite conservative speakers to campus. But the university refused to provide the same sort of funding it gives to other student groups. When challenged, the administrator in charge of Student Life hid behind the Speakers Committee, which Horowitz describes as “a partisan student group dedicated to bringing left-wing speakers to campus.” With $63,000 a year to spend, the Committee had brought expensive lefties like James Carville and Gloria Steinem. Wake Up America, Horowitz writes, in its entire existence “has never been granted a single cent to bring conservatives” to Vanderbilt.

Such largess for leftists go beyond funds dedicated to speakers. In 2002, when Horowitz was invited, Vanderbilt disbursed over a million dollars to student groups ostensibly to promote a “diversity of activities,” in the words of the university. At the same time that Wake Up America received nothing, other identity-politics groups received over $130,000. Horowitz recounts other appearance he made across the country where left-wing speakers received tens of thousands of dollars, while his visit had to be financed by funds raised off campus. As Horowitz notes, such political bias is “completely normal in the academic world.”

The bulk of Horowitz’s book documents his efforts to get state legislatures and college administrators to adopt an Academic Bill of Rights (ABR) as a way of stopping such abuse. After some initial successes, particularly in Colorado, the campaign was stalled by relentless misrepresentation and outright lies on the part of colleges, the media, and academic organizations. For example, the ABR called for common sense principles similar to those colleges adopted over a century ago. But the principle that universities should base hiring on a candidate’s “competence and appropriate expertise in the field,” and foster “a plurality of methodologies and perspectives,” was transformed by the Colorado media into “affirmative action for conservatives.”

Most reprehensible was the reaction of the American Association of University Professors, which has long touted its dedication to academic freedom. In 1915 the AAUP promulgated a report that gave impetus to a wider recognition of the need for universities to respect the freedom of its professors to practice research without fear of retribution for challenging any ideologies, preferences, and prejudices. The AAUP report became the template for most of higher education’s policies on academic freedom.

The University of California’s Berkeley campus, for example, in 1934 established the “Sproul” rule, named for its author, university president Robert Gordon Sproul. This rule identified the function of the university as the effort “to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train students in the processes whereby truth is to be made known. To convert, or to make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty.” If “political, social, or sectarian movements” are to be considered, they should be “dissected and examined, not taught, and the conclusion left, with no tipping of the scales, to the logic of the facts.”

In 2003, the Berkeley Faculty Senate voted 43-3 to scrap this noble aspiration. The distinction between indoctrination and education was tossed, and the faculty were made the arbiters of teaching and research standards “by reference to the professional standards” and “the expertise and authority” of the faculty, which now should govern the acquisition of knowledge. As Horowitz writes, “academic freedom is whatever the faculty says it is.” The proliferation of “studies” and programs nakedly political and designed to pursue politically correct ideology, rather than a dispassionate search for truth through disinterested professional methodologies, guaranteed that “professional standards” would be politicized. The academic freedom created to protect scholarship has now been changed to a “substitute for it — a license for professors to do what they liked.” As a result, courses like “The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance” replace traditional history courses that present all the documented evidence of a historical event gathered by the neutral protocols governing research. The decline of professional competence, as Martin Kramer documented regarding Middle East Studies programs in his Ivory Towers on Sand, creates a vacuum filled by political ideology and faddish theory.

Of course, the AAUP, its board dominated by leftists, had long ago abandoned the principles of the 1915 report, tending instead “to overlook infringements” of it, like the excising of the Sproul rule, “and even defend them,” Horowitz writes. So it is no wonder that the AAUP went after the ABR, misrepresenting its clear meaning. During the debate over the Colorado state legislature’s bill to codify the ABR into law, the AAUP went on the offensive, calling the ABR “a grave threat to fundamental principles of academic freedom,” and recommending that it should be “strongly condemn[ed].” It also blatantly distorted the bill’s language, saying it required that “universities… maintain political pluralism,” a phrase that doesn’t appear in the bill, which called for “the fair representation of conflicting viewpoints on issues that are controversial,” as Horowitz explained. The numerous other misrepresentations that Horowitz analyzes show that the AAUP, much like the UN, no longer believes in the principles of one of its foundational documents.

With such concentrated opposition by university faculty, administrators, unions, and professional organizations, the ABR didn’t have a chance. As Horowitz writes of the AAUP response,

If any act might serve as a symbol of the problems that have beset the academy in the last thirty years — its intense politicization and partisanship and consequent loss of scholarly perspective — it is this unscholarly assault on a document whose philosophy, formulations and very conception have been drawn from its own statements and positions on academic freedom.

Such an abuse of language to serve power and ideology, first described by Thucydides and memorably expressed in George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language,” is now standard operating procedure in the American university.

Now that Donald Trump’s success has driven the academic left into even greater absurdities and thuggery, perhaps conditions are right for cleaning the Augean Stables of campus corruption. But such change will require the efforts of congressmen, state legislators, the Department of Education, university trustees, and the taxpayers who directly and indirectly fund American higher education. And we need many more champions of the university’s mission to study and teach “the best which has been thought and said in the world, and, through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically, vainly imagining that there is a virtue in following them staunchly which makes up for the mischief of following them mechanically,” as Matthew Arnold wrote.

David Horowitz has long tried to hold accountable the presumed guardians of the university’s mission. It’s time for more citizens to join him and dismantle the “stock notions and habits” of the left that are responsible for so much of our country’s political and cultural “mischief.” Reading The Left in the University is the place to start.

By now, we get it. Race-baiting professors are convinced the entire system is rigged against minorities and will use any and all opportunities to argue such. If possible, they’ll publish these arguments in journals so they can pretend their racially charged screeds are somehow legitimate.

The latest example comes from a professor at the University of Texas. James Jupp is a professor of critical white studies who thinks that too much of K-12 education is racist or something.

From Campus Reform:

Such knowledge, Jupp explains, “refers to Whitestream subject area content and related whitened intellectual habits that form the basis of much mainstream learning and teaching in U.S. schools.”

Jupp then cites K-12 history lessons as an example, noting that many K-12 students are taught through the lens of “white privilege,” which creates problems among the future educators in Jupp’s classes, whom he teaches to “resist critical race and whiteness pedagogies.”

In an effort to fight this, Jupp, a proponent of “decolonizing education,” calls upon his fellow professors to commit to “the creative destruction of cherished curriculum knowledge” and replace it with “actionable, teachable, antiracist knowledge for race-visible teaching.”

“Racialized curriculum recoding is important because it begins to outline the ways in which critical race or whiteness pedagogies must actually recode and replace existing cherished knowledge in process-oriented ways,” Jupp argues, saying such a tactic is important because historically aspiring “white teachers [have] denied, evaded, or diminished the salience of race in teaching and learning.”

In other words, math, science, English, and actual history are all racist and stuff.

Look, we have issues in education, but Jupp is out of his mind if he thinks “whiteness” is somehow an infection that has spread throughout the K-12 curriculum in this country. He’s absolutely insane.

Instead, this is race-baiting nonsense that only really impacts him because he teaches courses in this nonsense and students who enter his class see it as such. They see it, resist it, and Jupp doesn’t like that. So he wants them primed for his class by ignoring centuries of scholarship in all the various disciplines just so he can have an easier time.

The Princeton campus newspaper has a unique editorial structure. While most newspapers — not just student-run ones — have an editorial board that is made up of senior editors, Princeton’s Princetonian has an editorial board that is completely separate from the senior student staff. Instead, it has what has been reported as a fairly broad cross-section of students on the Ivy League campus.

But then the board put forth several right-leaning opinion pieces in a row, which was intolerable for the tolerant leftists in charge at the Princetonian.

From The College Fix:

Earlier this month, however, that independent board was dissolved by the Princetonian’s top editors, who reverted to the more common model of having senior editors pen unsigned editorials.

The decision upset members of the disbanded board, who have gone rogue, launching their own website to continue to publish opinions and combat what they call the Princetonian’s“anti-pluralism.”

In their debut editorial Sept. 14, they also called current leaders of the Princetonian out for bias, noting the “catalyst for the change in the Editorial Board’s structure was a series of editorials that did not align with the personal political convictions of the Editor-in-Chief and other senior editors.”

Sarah Sakha, who is now editor-in-chief of the campus paper and was also a contributor to the Princeton Progressive, defended the action.

Sakha, in an email to The College Fix, defended the decision to disband the group, noting it was made by the Managing Board, which she heads, after consulting with other members of the Princetonian and its Board of Trustees.

“We decided to revise the structure of our Editorial Board, in a return to a more traditional model of an editorial board, for a college newspaper,” Sakha said. “We welcome a diversity of opinion, which is why we have invited all current members of the board to apply to the new board. Alternatively, they can become bylined columnists, without having to apply. We expect their voices will not be lost, but rather amplified, on our Opinion pages by having a byline.”

I’m sorry, but that’s equine excrement.

In the “Are you kidding me?” file, a 5th grade math and science (ha!) teacher is coming out as a biology denier and has sent a letter home to his or her (we’re still not sure) class asking to be called by the pronoun “Mx.” pronounced “mix.” Parents in Tallahassee, Florida, were understandably alarmed when they received this letter from their children’s’ teacher:

One thing that you should know about me is that I use gender neutral terms. My prefix is Mx. (pronounced Mix). Additionally, my pronouns are “they, them, their” instead of “him, her, his.”

Frankly, if I got a letter like this I would be down at that school asking them to remove the mentally ill person they hired who has power over my child. What kind of fresh hell is this? The school is standing behind this mixed-up person, of course, and spitting in the faces of parents who feel that this type of political grandstanding is a distraction to learning. How are the parents supposed to be assured that their child will not be punished for failing to deny reality should they slip up and use the proper pronouns? And will there be any recourse for the English language, which they are being taught to abuse in such a heinous way? Have we no respect left for basic grammar?

Third person, singular pronouns are not interchangeable with third person, plural pronouns. They are not now and will not ever be unless the LGBTQWTF crowd is going to dismantle the rules of grammar and rewrite them and then force us all to learn them again. This task would be so difficult I doubt they could pull themselves away from the latest vagina march to actually try it. No one should refer to a singular person as “they or them” and should be slapped by a stern nun for even thinking about it.

The sex-confused have ruined public education, locker rooms, public bathrooms, Target, and sanity, but by God, they will not ruin English. That’s a bridge too far. Those of us immersed in its structure and thousands of tiny rules and exceptions, who live daily by the written fundamentals of the hardest language on earth, who have sweated and slaved over dangling participles and subjunctive moods will refuse, with rigid defiance, to take part in this destruction of our language. You don’t want to tangle with the grammar Nazis! We will not be moved.

Anyone who is sending a child to a school that does not repudiate this grammatical horror show should realize immediately that it is not a place of learning but one of political indoctrination and idiocy. A school that supports this heinous pronoun person-swapping is no school at all but a place where someone goes to become irreversibly incoherent and unable to function in reality.

Is anyone keeping an active list of all the reasons why homeschooling is the only way to go? The wanton destruction of our mother tongue should clearly be moved to the top.

UPDATE: The principal, Paul Lambert, supported his teacher by misgendering her to the press: “We support her preference in how she’s addressed, we certainly do,” Lambert said. “I think a lot of times it might be decided that there is an agenda there, because of her preference — I can tell you her only agenda is teaching math and science at the greatest level she can.”

It just doesn’t get funnier than this.

Biology professor Bret Weinstein has settled his lawsuit against Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash. Mr. Weinstein became a pariah last spring when he criticized an officially sanctioned “Day of Absence” during which white people were asked to stay away from campus. He and his wife, anthropology professor Heather Heying, alleged that Evergreen “has permitted, cultivated, and perpetuated a racially hostile and retaliatory work environment.” They claimed administrators failed to protect them from “repeated provocative and corrosive verbal and written hostility based on race, as well as threats of physical violence.”

Last week the university announced it would pay $500,000 to settle the couple’s complaint. Evergreen said in a statement that the college “strongly rejects” the lawsuit’s allegations, denies the Day of Absence was discriminatory, and asserts: “The college took reasonable and appropriate steps to engage with protesters, de-escalate conflict, and keep the campus safe.”

A different story emerges from hundreds of pages of Evergreen correspondence, which I obtained through Washington state’s Public Records Act. The emails show that some students and faculty were quick to levy accusations of racism with neither evidence nor consideration of the reputational harm they could cause. The emails also reveal Mr. Weinstein and Ms. Heying were not the only ones concerned about a hostile and dangerous campus.

Consider a February exchange, in which Mr. Weinstein—a progressive who is skeptical of identity politics—faulted what he called Evergreen administrators’ “reckless, top-down reorganization around new structures and principles.”

Within minutes, a student named Mike Penhallegon fired back an email denouncing Mr. Weinstein and his “racist colleagues.”

Another student, Steve Coffman, responded by asking for proof of racism within the science faculty. Mr. Coffman cited Christopher Hitchens’s variation of Occam’s razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Jacqueline McClenny, an office assistant for the First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services—a campus office that helped organize the Day of Absence—observed that because Hitchens’s razor is an “Englishman’s popularization of a Latin proverb,” it “would seem to itself be the product of at least two traditionally hierarchical, imperialist societies with an interest in disposing of inconvenient questions.”

Media professor Naima Lowe urged one of Mr. Weinstein’s defenders to read about how calls for civility are “often used to silence and/or dismiss concerns about racism.” She also said that the “white people making changes in their white supremacist attitudes and behaviors” were those “who do not immediately balk and become defensive,” instead acknowledging that “white supremacy is literally ingrained in everything.” In other words, merely defending oneself against the accusation of “white supremacy” is evidence of guilt. CONTINUE AT SITE

My 30th Harvard College reunion is in October. I plan to attend to see good friends and share great memories. Harvard asked for a donation. When I did not respond, they asked for a smaller one. Finally, the alumni office asked for just $10 as a sign of support.https://amgreatness.com/2017/09/20/wont-give-10-harvard/

But I will not give $10 to Harvard and want to explain why.

Re-Inventing the Past
The headlines from American campuses raise concern and often strain credulity. My hope on reading these stories is always that my school will set a standard to which others might repair. Recent examples prove Harvard has not.

The Harvard Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion recently distributed a “placemat guide for holiday discussions on race and justice with loved ones” to help students reform their parents’ bigoted views. Last week, the university extended a fellowship to a dishonorably discharged, 17-count felon and traitor to the nation. Disbelief followed by widespread indignation ensured the rescinding of the placemats and the invitation to Chelsea Manning. But astonishment lingers at the void of common sense, or mutated presumptions, necessary for them to have occurred in the first place.

The equally Orwellian Presidential Task Force on Inclusion and Belonging decided that the word “Puritans” (Harvard’s founders belonged to that sect) must be excised from the lyrics of the school’s 181-year-old anthem. The Task Force made the 1984 analogy unmistakable by adding, “an endorsed alternative” would be created, “the goal is to affirm what is valuable from the past while also re-inventing that past to meet and speak to the present moment.”

In late 2015 Harvard removed the title “house master” from what are essentially residential advisers, a title that reflected Harvard’s Oxford and Cambridge roots. The administration announced that although “what came before was not wrong” as the “academic context of the term has always been clear,” and even though the tradition was “beloved” by many alumni, the university would nevertheless abolish the title because “the general feeling” is that it “causes discomfort.”

Harvard joined the mania for erasing disfavored historical references, removing the Royall Crest at the Law School. Harvard also authorized its first “Black Commencement” in 2017. Organizers explained the event was “not about segregation” but “building a community.” Wouldn’t a single, unified graduation do that? How can anyone who abhors racial division in America see separate graduations as a step forward?

To wide alarm, the administration announced it would withhold scholarship support and prohibit students from becoming team captains or leaders of student organizations if they joined finals clubs (private organizations similar to fraternities and sororities). Harry Lewis, former dean of the college and a computer science professor, called the plans “dangerous new ground” and “a frightening prospect.”

Editor’s note: The David Horowitz Freedom Center today announced the University of California-Berkeley as the first school named in its new report on the “Top Ten Worst Schools that Support Terrorists.” Coinciding with the release, the Freedom Center placed posters on Berkeley’s campus exposing the links between Students for Justice in Palestine and the terrorist organization Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of the Jewish state.

As revealed in recent congressional testimony, Students for Justice in Palestine is a campus front for Hamas terrorists. SJP’s propaganda activities are orchestrated and funded by a Hamas front group, American Muslims for Palestine, whose chairman is Hatem Bazian and whose principals are former officers of the Holy Land Foundation and other Islamic “charities” previously convicted of funneling money to Hamas. The report and posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign titled Stop University Support for Terrorists. Images of the posters that appeared at UC-Berkeley may be viewed at www.stopuniversitysupportforterrorists.org.

While America’s eyes are focused on the battle to defeat ISIS in Syria and terrorist attacks in Europe, at colleges across the United States a coalition of terrorist-linked organizations are waging a propaganda war to destroy the Jewish state, annihilate the Jewish people and fan the flames of hatred for America as Israel’s “protector.” Led by Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Students Association, and Jewish Voice for Peace, these organizations do not launch rockets at Israeli civilian targets or dig terror tunnels under Israeli kindergarten classrooms. But they spread propaganda and take money and marching orders from those who do. Their mission is to whitewash actual terrorist attacks and promote the genocidal lies of terrorist organizations, specifically Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of the Jewish state.

In conducting these malevolent campaigns, these campus allies of the terrorists can count on the funding and protection of American universities like the University of California, who allow them to use their authority and prestige to lend this genocidal offensive an aura of respectability. The hatred that is an inevitable aspect of these campaigns has inspired an epidemic of anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish students, 59% of which – according to one study – are attributable to the anti-Israel lies spread by these campus groups, namely that Israel is built on stolen Arab land and is an “apartheid state.”

The primary collegiate member of the Hamas terror network is Students for Justice in Palestine whose principal founder is Hamas supporter Hatem Bazian, a Palestinian professor at UC-Berkeley. Bazian co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine in 2001 to support the Second Palestinian Intifada, which introduced suicide bombing into the attacks on Israel’s citizens in September 2000.

In his book American Jihad, terrorism expert Steven Emerson quotes Bazian’s exhortations at an American Muslim Alliance conference at which Bazian endorsed the infamous Hadith calling for the slaughter of the Jews, and advocated for the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine: “In the Hadith, the Day of Judgment will never happen until you fight the Jews. They are on the west side of the river, which is the Jordan River, and you’re on the east side until the trees and stones will say, ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!’ And that’s in the Hadith about this, this is a future battle before the Day of Judgment.”

Every successful terrorist campaign has a political as well as a military arm. The IRA terrorist organization was aided and abetted by its sister organization, Sinn Fein, a parliamentary party which advanced the terrorists’ agendas through propaganda and political support. Hamas operates in a similar fashion, relying on Students for Justice in Palestine and its key campus allies – the Muslim Students Association and Jewish Voice for Peace – to advance its sinister agendas. It does so with Hamas’s organizational support and funding through an intermediary organization, American Muslims for Palestine, whose creator is also Hatem Bazian. Hatem Bazian currently serves as the chair of AMP’s board. In 2009, Bazian founded the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project at the University of California’s Center for Race and Gender. Thus, the University of California also lends its prestige and resources to a program designed by a terrorist agent to discredit critics of Islamic terrorism as “Islamophobes.”

Other key board member officers of American Muslims for Palestine were formerly board members of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in America until it was exposed in trial as a front for Hamas. American Muslims for Palestine has copied the Holy Land Foundation model. In recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Jonathan Schanzer, who worked as a terrorism finance analyst for the United States Department of the Treasury from 2004-2007, and now serves as the Vice President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), described how Hamas funnels large sums of money and provides material assistance to Students for Justice in Palestine through AMP for the purpose of promoting BDS campaigns and disseminating Hamas propaganda on American campuses.

According to his testimony, “At its 2014 annual conference, AMP invited participants to ‘come and navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism.’” He further classified AMP as “arguably the most important sponsor and organizer for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which is the most visible arm of the BDS campaign on campuses in the United States.” He revealed that AMP “provides speakers, training, printed materials, a so-called ‘Apartheid Wall,’ and grants to SJP activists” and “even has a campus coordinator on staff whose job is to work directly with SJP and other pro-BDS campus groups across the country.” Furthermore, “according to an email it sent to subscribers, AMP spent $100,000 on campus activities in 2014 alone.”