RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-spoiled-brats-of-academe/

President Trump’s campaign to restore Constitutional order and common sense to our government has rightly targeted our educational institutions, keeping the pledge he made on the campaign trail “to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical Left.” These institutions, like a fish, rot from the head down, and so the corruption of our universities must be reduced by starting with their administrations and faculties.

That corruption became obvious during the campus protests celebrating Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The despicable anti-Semitism of the students and faculty of some of our most prestigious universities, as well as violence directed at Jewish students, replete with genocidal chants and rhetoric, were tolerated by campus authorities and met with shameful appeasement, if not encouragement, rather than arrests and expulsions.

Trump has responded by garnishing some of the billions of dollars that taxpayers provide to universities, which use these funds to finance politicized or dubious research, create anti-American programs, and graduate majors rife with leftwing curricula filled with postmodern “higher nonsense,” but lacking any prospects of employment other than political activism. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Wall Street Journal reports, “You have a higher chance of being unemployed these days if you go to college.”

In response, these institutions have been caterwauling like a spoiled, entitled brat whose rich father has reduced his exorbitant allowance. Typical are the comments of Princeton’s president, Christopher Eisgruber, who blustered, “The attack on Columbia is a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research . . . Universities and their leaders should speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.”

So how did private universities with multi-billion-dollar, tax-free endowments get a “right” to taxpayer money? And how did the common-sense wisdom that “He who pays the piper calls the tune” disappear? Aren’t there conditions the feds impose on how public funds are spent? Are not politicized curricula, programs, and majors verboten?

But the left-wing’s “long march” to politicize universities is just one example of the left’s corruption of our schools. Postmodern and poststructuralist ideologies––the idiot children of Marx’s malign ideas such of “false consciousness” –– incorporate other sophistic ideas such as the simplistic, radical materialist determinism and relativism.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-universities-dei-diversity-center-right-critics

Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has taken decisive action against DEI in universities, threatening to investigate, punish, and withhold funding from higher education institutions that discriminate in the name of diversity. Most conservatives, who correctly see DEI as a threat to colorblind equality, have celebrated these maneuvers. But some center-right intellectuals, who claim to oppose DEI in theory, have criticized the White House for using administrative power to eliminate it in practice.

One such figure is Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, who has gained attention in recent years as an insider critic of DEI. He has been mildly critical of diversity statements in faculty hiring, which he claims infringe on “academic freedom” and diminish “the true value of diversity.” Some conservatives praise him as a reformer, but the truth is more complicated: as dean, Flier was not a critic of DEI at all. In fact, he oversaw its rapid expansion and became a critic only after he retired from that position.

Last month on X, I asked Flier to substantiate the facts about his opposition to DEI. “When you were Dean of Harvard Medical School, what did you do to stop racial discrimination in admissions, hiring, and programs?” I asked. “Why can’t I find any record of you speaking out against your department’s illegal DEI practices when you were in charge?”

Flier attempted to duck the question but eventually relented. “[W]hen I was dean, affirmative action in admissions and various DEI programs were not illegal,” he replied.

This approach distorted the law—discriminatory hiring programs have always violated the Civil Rights Act. And Flier’s reply was an evasion. He would rather quibble over legal technicalities than grapple with his conduct as an administrator.

After resigning as dean, Flier himself admitted that he knew requiring diversity statements in faculty hiring was wrong but could only publicly express his criticism once he was out of power. “As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said [that I oppose requiring diversity statements]. But I will now.” In other words, Flier knew that these initiatives violated his principles but refused to voice his opinion at the time, not because of legal technicalities—a post hoc rationalization—but because it would have jeopardized his career. He could have opposed DEI, but chose not to, out of fear.