The bias against conservatism of any kind, in fact, any Republicanism on college campuses. is well-documented. It’s leveled against students and professors alike. We’ve seen notable Republicans denied opportunities to speak, students banned from discussions, and we know that the professors in universities today are more than 90% liberal or liberal-leaning.
One professor describes the fight for First Amendment freedoms on our college campuses as an epic civil rights struggle.
Listen to the following clip from a speech by Professor Adams after he won a free speech case against the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. They harassed him for his conservative views and denied him a promotion.
There is tremendous pressure to not hire conservatives and to pressure them out when they do manage to get hired. Harassment and dynamic silence are the preferred techniques.
How do you damage or destroy people and not build them up? It’s through dynamic silence.
It’s a theory developed in the 1940’s and ’50’s and recounted in a book called The Fatal Embrace.
It is not enough to disagree. Colleagues must ignore, disassociate, refuse to fraternize with the enemy. The enemy is anyone who disagrees with liberal thought and actions.
Dynamic Silence was invented by Rabbi Feinberg of the American Jewish Committee in 1947 as a method of closing off all access to the public media – and thus the larger culture – for people or organizations deemed to have an unacceptable point of view. In spite of minor changes and adaptations, it can still be understood as being comprised of two parts. In the first part, unfavored individuals are denied unmediated exposure to the public. In the second part, only negative aspects of the unfavored individuals are reported. This starts a downward spiral of de-legitimization in the public eye in which the harder unfavored individuals try to get public exposure, the more negative and unflattering that exposure becomes until, finally, nobody wants to be associated with the ideas of beliefs of the unfavored individuals.
Look around and you will see it’s happening on our college campuses today – in all of American society today – and it is being orchestrated by the very people who claim to hold up free speech as a sacred right.
People who disagree with gay marriage are all homophobes and bigots; people who object to omitting the word “Islamic” from “Islamic radicalism” are Islamophobes; those who dare object to extreme measures to address climate change are flat-earthers and deniers; religious people are fools; those who say one thing about one black person is a racist; and anyone who wants legal immigration is a racist.
This thinking which denies us our free speech and holds political correctness (PC) as a sacred American value is no less prevalent and far more dangerous on our college campuses.
PC is their false god.
In April of this year, with little fanfare, there was a final decision on what should have been a major story. A conservative professor at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington was granted a promotion to a full professorship that he was denied for seven years because of his conservative views.
When he converted to Christianity in 2000, he began writing a column on Townhill.com and with it began a campaign of academic harassment, which included denying him a promotion.
When he mentioned his column on his application for promotion, the university said it was an official duty and he was not permitted to speak freely.
Professor Adams talks about the opponents as the Pharisees of higher education.
Watch the full video which I excerpted earlier in the post:
Liberals will have you believe conservatives are too rigid to teach in college or are simply not interested. It’s not true.
In the 1960’s forward, liberal and far-left rabble rousers went into university teaching to sway young minds and control the bastions of learning.
Maoist Communist Bill Ayers was clear when he said the power is in the schools.
Go to 1:02:
This even goes on in Catholic colleges.
John McAdams, a professor at Marquette, a Catholic university, was suspended for blogging on behalf of a student who argued with another professor that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Government Professor Harvey C. Mansfield and Yiddish/Literature Professor Ruth R. Wisse of Harvard spoke to the Harvard Crimson in 2008.
Mansfield said that out of a 50-person government department, there were only three or four conservative professors. This is a department that teaches politics!
Mansfield said, “The weaknesses in the argument of liberalism are not addressed or not even known. It seems the university fails to appreciate there are two parties in this country.”
One can see how our two party system is endangered from this professor’s comments alone.
Wisse said the lack of conservative voices on the faculty has led her to be more partisan and outspoken in her views. But she and Mansfield agreed that faculty without tenure may feel uncomfortable expressing a conservative viewpoint.
She said the college accepts imbalance as the status quo. “It is not healthy,” she said, “when one side assumes the other is barbaric and writes it off and never listens to it at all. It just assumes that everybody is made in its own image and political correctness is all on one side.
“The worst consequence of this is that many of our best students have not gone into the academe if they have a conservative-tending outlook,” Wisse said. “Or they have chosen to camouflage it far into their careers, so that it would not jeopardize their position.”
Wisse and Mansfield also charged that what they see as the liberal slant of the faculty has led the college to omit certain specialties from the curriculum, such as military history and conservative political and religious theory.
Both Wisse and Mansfield have attempted to get Harvard to address the lack of diversity but they won’t.
The discrimination is openly admitted to by college professors. They feel righteous in their denial of freedoms for opponents.
In a peer-reviewed study of political diversity published in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”
The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”
More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against conservative candidates. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”
In March of 2013, Newsbusters posted excerpts from a Harvard Crimson article in which conservatives were told not to enroll in Harvard if they are going to criticize the school afterwards – it’s treason they said.
The article was titled, “Warning: Do Not Enroll. If you might want to insult Harvard down the line, go elsewhere”:
You see, lately, there seems to be a pernicious trend of public figures—especially those on the right—falling in love with Harvard just long enough to benefit from its educational resources and, yes, its social prestige, before turning against our school.
Those conservative public figures were Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx.), Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, and former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney who have all recently made disparaging remarks about Harvard.
Revealing their offensive bias, they continued:
Such episodes of treachery are apparently attempts to curry favor with the more anti-intellectual members of our body politic. Yet it is finally time that we say enough is enough. We at The Crimson urge anyone who plans on one day scoring political points by maligning Harvard to neither apply, enroll, nor graduate from this fine institution.
There you have it. These students are learning that disagreement is treachery; if you disagree with liberalism you must be doing it for political expediency; free speech is for all but conservatives and any who disagree; conservatives are anti-intellectual; not touting the company line is the same as maligning. I could go on.
They want us to all shut up unless we mindlessly chant the perceived flawless wisdom of the left.