Harvard Ivy League status is over. pic.twitter.com/UaU5aEF0Gx
— Melyana Klue (@MelyanaKlue) December 12, 2023
Harvard Says to Us, Get Over It? Most of the nation witnessed three haughty, morally obtuse Ivy-League presidents humiliated in their groupthink televised House testimonies. But more than 700 Harvard faculty did not. They are circling the wagons to ensure that their benefactor President Gay’s job (and for some of them, perhaps theirs too) was not in danger. They just signed a letter (e.g., “The critical work of defending a culture of free inquiry in our diverse community cannot proceed if we let its shape be dictated by outside forces”), reaffirming support for President Gay—even as she reels from charges including an inability or unwillingness to condemn and punish serial and overt anti-Semitic behavior and speech on her campus, plagiarism, a history of suppressing campus free expression, and hounding conservative professors on dubious pretexts.
We should also remember that today’s elite campus believes it is the sole property of the current faculty, students, and administrators, who at the moment happen to occupy it—and not also of the “outside forces” of the alumni, of the donors, and of the many boards of overseers and trustees (not to mention of the taxpayers who provide multibillion-dollar subsidies to it). I think we can all agree on one thing: Harvard most certainly does not stand for “defending a culture of free inquiry”—at least as it applies to unfettered and free debate over, say, controversies such as Israel, DEI, affirmative action, grading standards, Christianity, Western Civilization, climate change, abortion, fossil fuels, transgenderism and sports, illegal immigration, or firearms.
There was a reason, after all, why The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) ranked Harvard dead last out of 248 universities in protecting “free speech”, and why Gay’s Harvard is infamous for bending to pressure to disinvite guest speakers, attacking any who do not abide by approved vocabulary, ostracizing faculty deemed insufficiently supportive of DEI agendas, and student mobs hounding professors whose published research they do not like. Given the gargantuan Ivy-League endowments and multibillion-dollar annual influx of “research” grants to elite institutions, these presidents and their universities apparently believe they are to be exempt from all criticism and enjoy a birthright to endless federal money.
Again, the only thing that can save the elite universities from themselves, and from their descent into the modern Dark Ages is to return once again to inculcating civic education, ensuring free inquiry, offering inductive courses—and showing some concern for their own middle-class taxpaying benefactors. Yet it is hard to imagine the current intolerant woke campus will change course unless we have a serious discussion about curbing the government’s multibillion-dollar subsidies to elite higher education—winding down the massive research grants, tax-free endowment income, tax-deductible private gifts, and $2 trillion in federally subsidized student loans. In other words, why should we pay for institutions that despise us, and masquerade as disinterested universities when they are proud indoctrination centers and emissaries of what they think will be a brave, new, and more or less unrecognizable America. – Victor Davis Hanson
- Great article. Your spotlight on the money at stake in this conflict cannot be ignored. It is huge. This is where the battle will be won or lost. – Brian Katz
- VDH is definitely a champion of integrity and intellect! I pray that he is on DJT’s short list as a cabinet member. The first paragraph of his post was absolutely classic: “Most of the nation witnessed three haughty, morally obtuse Ivy-League presidents humiliated in their groupthink televised House testimonies.” If they have any sense of shame these universities should fire these “haughty” pseudo intellectuals without delay! – Johnny O
- Ah, the tempest at Harvard, where the winds of controversy blow with relentless vigor. This scenario, a vivid illustration of the current ideological maelstrom engulfing many a venerable institution. The faculty’s staunch defense of President Gay, amidst accusations of failing to adequately address anti-Semitic behavior and suppressing free expression, is a telling chapter in this saga. This fervent letter of support, a shield raised against the storm of criticism, speaks volumes. It suggests a cloistered mindset, where the guardians of academic sanctums view themselves as the sole arbiters of their domain, seemingly disconnected from the broader community of alumni, donors, and the overseeing boards. This insular perspective, don’t you see, risks alienating those beyond the ivy-covered walls who view the institution with growing skepticism. The irony here is profound. An institution reputed for intellectual freedom and diversity now stands accused of stifling the very principles it purports to champion. The issues at stake — from the Israeli conflict to climate change, from transgenderism in sports to gun rights — are complex and multifaceted, demanding a milieu where diverse viewpoints can clash and coalesce freely. Yet, Harvard’s ranking by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression paints a starkly different picture, one of ideological homogeneity and intolerance for dissent. The financial aspect cannot be overlooked. The colossal endowments and federal funding that flow into these elite institutions raise critical questions about accountability and the true nature of their academic mission. Can these universities continue to justify their receipt of such substantial support if they fail to uphold the tenets of free and open inquiry? To recalibrate, a return to foundational values seems imperative. A renewed commitment to civic education, the encouragement of diverse perspectives, and a reconnection with the broader societal context in which these institutions exist could be the beacon guiding these ships back to safer waters. Yet, the path to such change appears fraught with challenges, especially in an environment increasingly polarized and resistant to introspection. The prospect of revising federal subsidies and financial support looms as a potential catalyst for reform, a lever that might yet steer these institutions back towards their noblest aspirations. The question then becomes not just one of policy, but of the very soul of higher education in America. L. Ron Hubbard (Parody)
Victor Davis Hanson runs a blog where you can see all of his work – see: Blade of Perseus
His Wikipedia page is OK for info on him as well, although it is a bit Leftist – Wikipedia
