A Domestic Battle For Hearts And Minds
As regular visitors to the blogosphere should already know, Bucknell University has added its name to the list of academic institutions that have brought political correctness to the level of the absurd. In this case it borders on outright anti-Americanism. On August 29 of this year the Bucknell Conservative Club sent out a university wide e-mail announcing their sponsorship of guest speaker Major John Krenson. They wrote: “Where were you during the months following 9/11? Maj John Krenson was hunting terroroists.”
According to Evan Coyne Maloney at Brain Terminal, who first reported the story, this prompted an immediate response by the University
This begs the question, who would be offended by the phrase? Terrorists? There is a book by former FBI agent Joe Navarro using the phrase as its title. As a US Army infantryman I’ve used the phrase again and again to describe missions I conducted in Iraq, as well as missions my fellow soldiers undertook in Afghanistan. In fact it is an apt description of a major focus of the combined US security apparatus. We are in fact, actively hunting terrorists. A few bleeding hearts have objected to applying the word 'hunt' to human prey, but we routinely refer to dectectives "hunting for a killer" during murder cases. In this case it is more apt, as our forces are authorised to KILL the enemy. Are we really that concerned about offending the terrorists. Or is that liberal academic types still can't bring themselves to appreciate the need for the US government to take violent action? KILL and HUNT are such nasty words.
These students were counseled by their university, for inappropriate and offensive language. Yet the university system has not found it necessary to censor or even censure speech that is truly offensive. Even when it condones violent action taken against the US. University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has not been counseled by that institution for his use of the phrase “little Eichmanns” to describe the victims of 9/11. That phrase is truly offensive, to Americans, to New Yorkers, to anyone who lost friends or family that day, but the University allows his free speech without comment.
Nor has Columbia University yet offered any words of rebuke for their Professor Nicholas de Genova, who in 2003 called for a “thousand Mogadishu’s” in Iraq. That phrase was and remains patently offensive to US soldiers and veterans everywhere. But I guess at Columbia it’s appropriate to call for the death of US soldiers. Apparently it’s inappropriate at Bucknell to call for a similar end to America’s terrorist enemies.
The fact that there is a liberal bias at American universities is nothing new. Americans for years have understood that the realm of academia is predominantly on the left half of American society. A 2003 study by the National Association of Scholars exposed just how lopsided the political leanings of America’s professorial ranks really are. A minimum of a 7-1 ratio of liberal leaning professors, measured by voting preferences not part affiliation was demonstrated.
More and more the concept a liberal education in America is being replaced by an education by Liberals. These liberals hide behind the ideas of free speech and academic integrity to protect the non-sense spouted by the likes of de Genova and Churchill. To be fair these moonbats ARE entitled to their nutty anti-American opinions. But Academia's silent sanction of this hate speech is in stark contrast to the enforcement of the PC code of student speech.
An email from self identified conservatives is subject to review for the phrase, "hunting terrorists. Where is the outcry from the rest of academia? Why don't these students have the right to a free and open exchange of their ideas? Basically because our university system has been hijacked. The liberals of the Ivory Tower spout whatever platitude is convenient at the moment. Free speech for themselves, but not for anyone who offends them.
This is clearly an anti-democratic stance. While academics pay lip service to free speech, and academic integrity, they clearly mean to control speech in their world. While it has always been mildly alarming that the entire realm of higher learning is so heavily weighted towards the left, the situation has become downright scary today. Who wants to send their children to a school system that favors the speech of a Ward Churchill over a Major Krenson?
America is engaged in a global struggle. Our enemies are very real and very dangerous. Yet our universities would censure those who speak up for our country, and reward those who encourage our foes. That universities are liberal strongholds is a tolerable imbalance. That they are becoming anti-American strongholds is not. This is in fact a flanking attack at our will to win. As Americans we need to keep watch, to ensure that higher education does not become a means for the propaganda machine of our foe.
Continued Thanks to the folks at Mudville Gazette.
According to Evan Coyne Maloney at Brain Terminal, who first reported the story, this prompted an immediate response by the University
“Those two words—‘hunting terrorists’--resulted in three students being called to Bucknell's Office of the President by Kathy Owens, the Executive Assistant to the President.
According to the students, when they arrived at the President's Office for the meeting, Ms. Owens held up a print-out of the offending e-mail and said "we have a problem here," telling the students that the words "hunting terrorists" were offensive. For the next half-hour, the three students were given a lecture on inappropriate phrasing.”
This begs the question, who would be offended by the phrase? Terrorists? There is a book by former FBI agent Joe Navarro using the phrase as its title. As a US Army infantryman I’ve used the phrase again and again to describe missions I conducted in Iraq, as well as missions my fellow soldiers undertook in Afghanistan. In fact it is an apt description of a major focus of the combined US security apparatus. We are in fact, actively hunting terrorists. A few bleeding hearts have objected to applying the word 'hunt' to human prey, but we routinely refer to dectectives "hunting for a killer" during murder cases. In this case it is more apt, as our forces are authorised to KILL the enemy. Are we really that concerned about offending the terrorists. Or is that liberal academic types still can't bring themselves to appreciate the need for the US government to take violent action? KILL and HUNT are such nasty words.
These students were counseled by their university, for inappropriate and offensive language. Yet the university system has not found it necessary to censor or even censure speech that is truly offensive. Even when it condones violent action taken against the US. University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has not been counseled by that institution for his use of the phrase “little Eichmanns” to describe the victims of 9/11. That phrase is truly offensive, to Americans, to New Yorkers, to anyone who lost friends or family that day, but the University allows his free speech without comment.
Nor has Columbia University yet offered any words of rebuke for their Professor Nicholas de Genova, who in 2003 called for a “thousand Mogadishu’s” in Iraq. That phrase was and remains patently offensive to US soldiers and veterans everywhere. But I guess at Columbia it’s appropriate to call for the death of US soldiers. Apparently it’s inappropriate at Bucknell to call for a similar end to America’s terrorist enemies.
The fact that there is a liberal bias at American universities is nothing new. Americans for years have understood that the realm of academia is predominantly on the left half of American society. A 2003 study by the National Association of Scholars exposed just how lopsided the political leanings of America’s professorial ranks really are. A minimum of a 7-1 ratio of liberal leaning professors, measured by voting preferences not part affiliation was demonstrated.
More and more the concept a liberal education in America is being replaced by an education by Liberals. These liberals hide behind the ideas of free speech and academic integrity to protect the non-sense spouted by the likes of de Genova and Churchill. To be fair these moonbats ARE entitled to their nutty anti-American opinions. But Academia's silent sanction of this hate speech is in stark contrast to the enforcement of the PC code of student speech.
An email from self identified conservatives is subject to review for the phrase, "hunting terrorists. Where is the outcry from the rest of academia? Why don't these students have the right to a free and open exchange of their ideas? Basically because our university system has been hijacked. The liberals of the Ivory Tower spout whatever platitude is convenient at the moment. Free speech for themselves, but not for anyone who offends them.
This is clearly an anti-democratic stance. While academics pay lip service to free speech, and academic integrity, they clearly mean to control speech in their world. While it has always been mildly alarming that the entire realm of higher learning is so heavily weighted towards the left, the situation has become downright scary today. Who wants to send their children to a school system that favors the speech of a Ward Churchill over a Major Krenson?
America is engaged in a global struggle. Our enemies are very real and very dangerous. Yet our universities would censure those who speak up for our country, and reward those who encourage our foes. That universities are liberal strongholds is a tolerable imbalance. That they are becoming anti-American strongholds is not. This is in fact a flanking attack at our will to win. As Americans we need to keep watch, to ensure that higher education does not become a means for the propaganda machine of our foe.
Continued Thanks to the folks at Mudville Gazette.
posted by John Byrnes at 10/13/2005 04:22:00 PM
1 Comments:
Good stuff, John. There's stuff even nuttier, I'm sure you're aware...the Columbia thing was the worst, I thought, but it didn't get much play even though Ward Churchill became an overnight celebrity. I saw yr piece in the Post, good stuff, again. What do you think of Ann Coulter vs. the WSJ on Miers? Entertaining! I can't get to my email at the moment, so, sorry about this, but keep up the good work. You know I won't agree all the time, but this college P.C. thing has been unreasonably irrational for a long time.
Post a Comment
<< Home