The Destruction of the Academy

From National Vanguard Magazine Issue No. 112, January-February 1992:

The debate over the enforcement of Political Correctness at American colleges and universities has been raging in the print media long enough that everyone from the party-loving frathouse jock to the most uncool computer nerd on campus has been made at least dimly aware that he must be careful what he says when talking about anything even remotely racial or sexual in nature.

One must never use the word “girl” in referring to any female over 10 years of age or the word “boy” in referring to a Black male of any age. (And one must not use the word “Black” either, which is considered by the most Politically Correct thinkers to be almost as offensive as “Negro,” “darky,” or “nigger”; the only acceptable designation now is “African American.”)

Homosexuals must never be referred to as “queers,” “lesbos,” “dykes,” “fruits,” “faggots,” “fairies,” or anything else but “gays” (except when the speaker is himself or herself of the sodomite persuasion: “queer” is now in vogue as a self-descriptive term among the pervert avant garde).

If one really wants to be on the safe side, he also should use the term “Politically Correct” (or its abbreviation, “PC”) as sparingly as possible — and certainly never with a smile on his face or a hint of derision in his voice — lest he indicate that he is one of those benighted souls whom the Red Guardist cadres of Political Correctness have been charged with re-educating. The PC position is that there is now and never has been a program to enforce Political Correctness, and that the term itself was invented by bigots and reactionaries to stigmatize progressive, right-thinking folks.

Does that sound a bit Orwellian? Alas, Orwell himself would be dumbfounded by the present state of affairs on our campuses. At the University of Connecticut students may be expelled for “conspicuous exclusion [of a female, non-White, or homosexual student] from conversation” or for “inappropriately directed laughter”; i.e., laughter at a “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobic” joke or at or about a woman or a member of a protected minority group in a way which might cause embarrassment or injured feelings. Although the University of Connecticut conduct code doesn’t spell it out, perhaps an inappropriately directed smirk or smile or grin would draw the same penalty as actual laughter, especially for a repeat or unapologetic offender. Remember Orwell’s definition of “facecrime”?

At the University of Minnesota six professors recently were charged with sexual harassment. The specifics of the charges included such offenses as not greeting a female student in a friendly enough manner, not teaching in a sensitive enough way, and not having read a certain feminist-favored novel. Eventually the charges were dropped, but only after the professors had been subjected to an ordeal of calumny and intimidation and had gone to great lengths of grovelling and self-abasement to prove themselves innocent of any non-PC tendencies.

At the University of Michigan a student who recited a limerick which speculated jokingly about the homosexuality of a well known athlete was required to attend “gay-sensitivity” training sessions and write a letter of self-criticism for publication in the campus newspaper, under threat of expulsion.

Pages could be filled with similar outrageous — or amusing or alarming — anecdotes about the excesses of Political Correctness, but anecdotes alone, no matter how outrageous, cannot give us a full understanding of the disaster which has befallen our universities. Many people have the belief that the enforcement of Political Correctness is simply an effort by well-intentioned university administrators to keep the peace on campuses with increasing numbers of minority students: that the main thrust of their effort has been to restrain uncivil students from using expressions like “kike” or “nigger” or “queer” or “bitch” in referring to their fellow students, thereby giving offense and disrupting the orderly climate of learning. People with this belief generally regard anecdotes of the sort cited here as evidence that in a few cases the efforts to maintain civility have become a little overzealous and have gone a little too far in the direction of restricting speech and other forms of expression. They tend to believe that what we need to do is guard against these excesses and protect the freedoms of students and faculty members to protect their First Amendment rights — within reasonable limits, of course.

Such people miss the whole point. The drive for Political Correctness is not an overzealous effort to maintain an orderly learning environment at our universities; on the contrary, it is a manifestation of the determination of certain elements inside and outside the universities to insure that the universities not be permitted to perform their traditional function of educating and civilizing a leadership elite for the next generation of Americans.


[T]he cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the “soft” sciences…


To be sure, there is among the PC cadres an element motivated primarily by the desire to maintain civility — or, rather, to avoid giving offense. There always have been those excessively tender-minded souls who flinch at the very thought of saying anything which might hurt someone else’s feelings. A cripple must never be referred to matter of factly as a cripple, but as a “physically disadvantaged person’; a man who likes to bugger little boys must under no circumstances be made to feel that his behavior is considered distasteful, unnatural, or contrary to the public interest; a woman must not be reminded that she is in any way different from a man, because that might limit her self-image and lead her to resign herself to motherhood and housewifery instead of pursuing a career as a corporate raider or a mud wrestler; a Black — oops, an African American — must not be laughed at or even gently corrected when, full of the absurdities and pufferies of one of the “Black history” courses now being offered at most major universities, he proudly claims that Hannibal and Cleopatra were of his race.

Solicitude for the feelings of others and the avoidance of unnecessary offense always have been characteristics of a gentleman. Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being “nice,” even at the expense of truth. Elevating niceness to the ultimate virtue, however, has become possible only in a society which has completely lost its moral bearings. Such niceness is the virtue of emasculated men and women deranged by the ravings of the feminists.


Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being “nice,” even at the expense of truth.


Such niceness is the principal motivation of only a relatively tiny element among the cadres of Political Correctness, however, even though it plays a substantially larger role among the camp followers of the movement. The cadres themselves are recruited mainly from the ranks of the radical feminists, the militant homosexuals, and the racial-minority activists (Blacks, mestizos, Asians, Amerindians, etc.). Their ranks are supplemented by a sprinkling of very sick White males hoping to atone through self-flagellation for their sins of Whiteness and maleness, a few die-hard Marxists who have established a final redoubt in America’s universities, and a very significant contingent of Jews — about whom more later.

The sayings and writings of these cadres, taken as a whole, leave no doubt that their aim goes far beyond protecting the sensibilities of hypersensitive minorities. One of the main thrusts of the Political Correctness movement has been to stamp out what they call “Eurocentrism” in university curricula. Their contention is that traditional curricula, freighted as they are with the writings of “dead White European males” — “dwems” for short — are not only irrelevant to the needs of today’s university students but are absolutely harmful.

PC Professor Stanley Hauerwas of the Duke University Divinity School complains, “The canon of great literature was created by High Anglican assholes to underwrite their social class.”

A Politically Correct committee at Tulane University has prepared a report on “race and gender enrichment” which laments: “It is difficult for us to see and overcome racism and sexism because we are all the progeny of a racist and sexist society.”

There is, of course, truth in the assertion of Tulane’s Red Guardists about the nature of European society. Pick almost any White male writer of prominence from any era prior to the Second World War, and you can be practically certain that his message will be tainted with racism, sexism, homophobia, paternalism, patriarchism, imperialism, or some other streng verboten “ism.”

Open Virgil’s great epic from the first century before this era, and the first words we see are, “Of arms and the man I sing…” Not “Of arms and the person”: clearly a male-centered, sexist screed.

Fourteen hundred years later Geoffrey Chaucer still was writing in the same vein, of a husband invited to keep tally of debts on the tail of his wife and a “cursed Jew” who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder. 


Geoffrey Chaucer [wrote] of … a “cursed Jew” who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder.


A century and a half after Chaucer the great Martin Luther was writing of the Jews: “The sun has never shined on such a bloodthirsty and vindictive people, who cherish the idea of murdering and strangling the Gentiles. No other men under the sun are more greedy than they have been, and always will be, as one can see from their accursed usury. They console themselves that when their Messiah comes he will collect all the gold and silver in the world and divide it among them.”

Toward the end of the 16th century William Shakespeare was writing of the Jew Shylock and his demand for a pound of flesh.

In the 18th century we may be tempted to peek into the works of the Founding Fathers — oops! make that the Founding Parents. Thomas Jefferson wrote that Whites and Blacks were so manifestly different that they could never live as equals in the same society. Benjamin Franklin’s often quoted  advice on choosing a mistress would send today’s feminists into orbit.

In Germany at the same time (and well into the next century) Wolfgang von Goethe was inspiring his own countrymen with his patriotic writing. We could nail him for sexism, racism, or any of a half-dozen other heresies. For example: “The important thing is that the race remain pure: in this way we become a people! And only in this way will we be able to preserve and enhance the German character.”

Moving further into the 19th century, we can look into the works of the better known and better loved English language writers. Take Edgar Allen Poe. One needs go no further than the third paragraph of what is probably his bestknown tale, The Gold Bug: “In these excursions he was usually accompanied by an old Negro, called Jupiter…who could be induced, neither by threats nor by promises, to abandon what he considered his right of attendance upon his young “Massa Will.'”

Or how about Rudyard Kipling? Do we want to know what secrets lurk in the covetous heart of “dark Israel”? We’ll find that in his Song of the Fifth River, among other places, Do we want White supremacy? Here is a snippet from his poem A Song of the White Men: “…Well for the world when the White men drink to the dawn of the White Man’s day!” Do we want imperialism? We’ll find it in nearly everything he wrote.

Charles Darwin, easily the most significant writer of the last century, remarks in his The Descent of Man, in a chapter in which he compares the mental powers of men and other animals: “…how little can the hard worked wife of an Australian savage, who uses very few abstract words, and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence.” This is only one of a hundred passages of Darwin’s which would have the Red Guards of Political Correctness shrieking for his blood.

In Russia, at the same time, Feodor Dostoievsky was condemning the avaricious nature and practices of the Jews, most notably in his Diary of a Writer [see “Dostoievsky on the Jews”]. Nicolai Gogol was writing much the same thing about Russia’s Jews in fictional form, in his novel, Taras Bulba.

It is easy enough to hunt out explicitly heretical passages from the writings of virtually every contributor of note in the edifice of Western civilization, from the days of Homer to those of Thomas Stearns Eliot and William Butler Yeats, but it is not really necessary. When racism, sexism, and the other heresies are not explicit, they nearly always are implicit. One does not expect to find many commentaries on the shortcomings of the Negro by European writers when there were no Negroes in Europe, but European society was nonetheless “racist” in every fiber of its being. European men usually loved their women, who usually reciprocated, but their society was as “sexist” by today’s Politically Correct feminist standards as it was racist.

A generation ago it was enough to attempt to shield students from the more explicit reminders of these facts: to explain away Luther’s and Dostoievsky’s denunciations of the Jews as aberrations, to make a few excuses of Poe’s depictions of Blacks, to skirt around Kipling’s more forceful calls for White pride. Anthologies compiled for classroom use carefully omitted the writings which were too hard to explain away.

This bowdlerizing of European civilization in an attempt to make it palatable to a diverse horde of students and teachers without European roots, as well as to growing numbers of disturbed White men and women whose inability to come to grips with their genders make the traditional “sexism” and “homophobia” of our civilization hateful, was utterly dishonest, and it was bound to fail.

The first postwar generation of White professors and university administrators (i.e., those who began retiring in the 1970s) — the authors of the policy of bowdlerization — was characterized by timidity and hypocrisy. Many of them were not happy with the moral compromises they were making, but what were they to do? Some simply didn’t have the courage to come right out and say that the bearers of Western civilization had committed a collective act of suicide by engaging in the Second World War: that America and Britain, in particular, had been tricked into fighting against everything on which the cultural ascendency of the West is based, and that now they must either repudiate their role in the war or look forward to the eventual abandonment of their heritage altogether. Had the war not been fought in the name of equality and democracy, and is that not what Political Correctness is all about?

Others had already developed the habit of moral ambiguity, and it was easier to compromise even further than to draw a line and take a stand.

The second postwar generation (i.e, those entering their professions during the quarter-century since about 1965) grew up in the television age and went through puberty under the influence of the Beatles, the Students for a Democratic Society, the Yippies, and the media deification of Martin Luther King; with cities being set to the torch by Black rioters and looters, while the media and the politicians blamed “White racism” for the turmoil; with permissiveness, the denial of individual accountability, the belief that all points of view are equally valid, and protests against every form of authority. The youngest members of this generation were weaned on Sesame Street and sent to racially integrated schools.

They grew up, in other words, in a time of cultural, moral, and racial chaos, and they reached maturity with no clear sense of identity, no firm cultural roots, and no moral bedrock as a basis for their values. They were ready to go with the flow, wherever it might lead: to take their direction from anyone with a loud enough voice.

This moral vacuum provided the perfect opportunity for any interest group which could organize itself on a large enough scale for its voice to be heard. Many groups organized, and the media perversely provided the loudest megaphones for precisely those with the most destructive aims. The feminists, the homosexuals, and the racial minority activists, who in healthier times would be sent scurrying back to their holes, were first tolerated on the campuses and later welcomed with open arms. There they have formed an interest bloc strong enough to swing an increasing amount of weight in setting policy. Despite their diversity they have a common hatred which unites them: a raging, burning hatred for the White, heterosexual, patriarchal society which abhorred and rejected them.

Anyone who thinks that the preceding sentence is an exaggeration has not paid attention to what the PC cadres are saying.

When Black professor Jane Jordan was criticized for teaching her English class at the Stony Brook campus of the State University of New York in Black ghetto dialect instead of standard English, she defended herself thus: “Should we use the language of the killers — standard English — in order to make our ideas acceptable to those controlling the killers?”

The more radical feminist professors preach that the only ways in which women can gratify their sexual feelings and retain their self-respect are through lesbianism and masturbation. To yield to sexual attraction for a man is to betray their own gender and consort with “the enemy.” Women who date are railed at as “prostitutes.” Allison Jagger, a PC professor at the University of Cincinnati and chairperson of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in Philosophy, teaches her students that the traditional family is a “cornerstone of women’s oppression” and should be abolished.

The students and professors who attracted national attention during the last two years with their successful campaign to eliminate the “Eurocentric” character of the humanities curricula at Stanford University weren’t merely trying to have a few changes made or a few minority-oriented courses added; their chant was, “Hey, hey, no, no, Western culture’s got to go!”

The statements of Politically Correct academics are replete with references to the “oppression” and “exploitation” of women, racial minorities, and homosexuals by heterosexual White males, and the texts which have become required reading for all students at Politically Correct universities are brimming over with resentment at wrongs inflicted and with exhortations for revenge. One should not be surprised, of course, that minority activists long steeped in this literature of resentment should hate those they have been persuaded are their oppressors.

It goes beyond that, though — as it reaches from the universities down into the high schools and elementary schools. A master plan for multicultural education put forward two years ago by New York State Education Commissioner Leonard Sobol is based on the thesis that “intellectual and educational oppression has characterized the culture and institutions of the European-American world for centuries.” The remedy for this intolerable situation, according to Mr. Sobol and his colleagues, is to require that “all curricular materials be prepared on the basis of multicultural contributions” so that non-White children “will have higher self-esteem, while children from European cultures will have a less arrogant perspective.”

We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol’s race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. The aim of the cadres of Political Correctness is not merely to make Blacks feel good about themselves by convincing them that their ancestors were founders of great civilizations and that the only reason for their own non-achievement is “oppression” by Whites. It is, more urgently, to squelch White racial consciousness and pride. It is to confuse heterosexual White males (and females), to keep them off balance, to make them feel apologetic, even guilty. It is to morally disarm “the killers,” to emasculate them, to prepare them to accept annihilation quietly.


We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol’s race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. 


One may think this is too ambitious a program. Certainly, the radical feminists who would like to persuade all other women not to consort with “the enemy” have not made a very large dent in heterosexual activity on our campuses — although they have sown all too many seeds of discord between men and women which surely will sprout later. And claims about the superiority of ancient Black cultures are generally ignored, even if few have the courage or honesty to refute them.

Furthermore, the cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the “soft” sciences, and the vast array of postwar “mickey mouse” and vocational curricula which have invaded the campuses. A student whose aim is to become a microbiologist, an electrical engineer, or a computer scientist will be too busy with facts to pay much attention to propaganda.

Nevertheless, the damage done has been enormous, and the threat of even greater damage is ominous. Whites have been confused. They have been put on the defensive. Some of the lies have stuck.
Consider, for example, the reactions of students, faculty members, and university administrators to a simple call for concern about the future for the White race. Members of the National Alliance, an organization whose principal activity is the publication of materials designed to raise White racial consciousness, have distributed on university campuses around the country a large number of stickers bearing the text: “Earth’s most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it.” The only other thing on the three-inch by five-inch, fluorescent orange stickers is a request for interested persons to contact the National Alliance for further information, with a mailing address and a telephone number.
One might think that people seeing such a sticker would either be interested in its message, in which case they would note the address and write to the National Alliance, or they would be uninterested and simply ignore it. In fact, however, the stickers have caused a furor whenever they have appeared on a campus. Blacks, Jews, and members of other minority groups have reacted rationally, denouncing the National Alliance and the persons who posted the stickers. After all, the last thing they want is for White Americans to develop the same sort of racial consciousness which gives the minorities their own strength. As they have said many times in their calls for racial solidarity among their own people, “We’ve got Whitey on the run now; let’s keep him running!”

It is the irrational fear of many Whites which provides the real evidence of the damage done by the program of thought control at our colleges and universities.

When stickers appeared on campus of Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, a Roman Catholic school in Pennsylvania, last spring, the president of the college, Reverend Daniel Gambet, sent a letter to all students and faculty members warning them not to be influenced by what he described as “hate literature.” He went on to say, “We believe it is important to publicly and unequivocally condemn this kind of material and the intolerant behavior which produces it.”

When the National Alliance stickers were posted on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, last fall, faint hearts were set aflutter again, and a group of especially guilt-stricken Whites organized an “anti-racism” meeting on campus, while the administration announced that it had “contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI will investigate the National Alliance.”

The same stickers on the campus of William Paterson College in Wayne, New Jersey, provoked education professor Edward Bell to demand that the trustees of the college “do something” to protect Black students on the campus and resulted in breathless newspaper articles and urgent meetings of the college’s “bias harassment panel.”

When not only stickers but a proposal to form a campus group, a White Students’ Union, to implement the message on the stickers appeared on the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota last year, an uproar began that still has not died down. The organizers of campus Jewish groups, Black groups, Asian groups, feminist groups, and homosexual groups are accepted calmly by other students and by the faculty and administration, but the organizer of the White Student Union, mild-mannered, soft-spoken senior Tom David, is a constant center of controversy. His presence on the campus provokes hand-wringing editorials in the student newspaper about “bigotry,” disgustingly wimpish letters to the editor by White males eager to confess the guilt of their kind, and rallies aimed at restoring the racial harmony on the campus David supposedly has upset.

In general, the reaction of many young White men and women to the National Alliance’s stickers is similar to what one might have expected in 1892 if someone had distributed fliers on campuses promoting free love and illustrating the concept with a photograph of a nude, copulating couple. Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn’t talk about and pretended that they didn’t think about. Any mention of it released a rush of confused emotions: guilt, fear, embarrassment. Anyone so indiscreet as to challenge the taboo was denounced by many and hated by others. Rational debate was a rarity.


Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn’t talk about and pretended that they didn’t think about… Today the taboo subject is race.


Today the taboo subject is race: rather, any deviation from the Politically Correct position on race. Just as the parents, teachers, preachers of a century ago managed to persuade young people, at a subconscious level, that their natural sexual feelings were somehow unclean, perhaps even sinful, and therefore to be kept repressed, the increasing harangue about “White racism” and the supposed White male repression, exploitation, and general mistreatment of practically everyone else has had its effect. Even the suggestion that the White race ought to concern itself with its survival releases a flood of confused and disturbing feelings. No one can say quite why such a suggestion is “hate” or “bigotry,” simply because, as was the case with sex a century ago, debate has been stifled and the persuasion has taken place largely at a subconscious level.

Which is not to say that some of the lies have not come to the surface; after White students have been put on the defensive subconsciously, they are inclined not to stick their necks out by debating the propositions that “diversity” is to be valued above homogeneity, that there are no significant racial differences in ability or character, and that men and women are essentially interchangeable units and should have the same roles in society.

This is grievous damage indeed. Those students also are damaged, however, who for whatever reason — perhaps stronger character or less susceptibility to group pressure — remain free of any feeling of guilt or of obligation to tolerate every minority impudence. They may still be able to learn their chemistry or their mathematics as well as ever, but to the extent that the insanity of multiculturalism has corrupted the teaching of history, of literature, of philosophy, of anthropology, and of other subjects they are robbed of their education and therefore of their culture, their civilization, and their identity. Universities cease to function in their natural role as formative institutions for the intellectual elite and become mere vocational training centers. And that was the way it was planned.

The reaction which has developed on our campuses to the crusade for Political Correctness is in some ways more dangerous than the sickness it purports to be attempting to cure. We can perceive the truth of this statement if we look closely at the position taken by the reaction — and at the leading personalities in the reaction.

At Yale University, for example, the recognized leader of those holding the line against the zanier excesses of the Red Guards is the dean of the undergraduate arts and sciences students, Donald Kagan. He is widely hailed as a force for reason and moderation in Academia, because he has refused to be stampeded into going along with those who insist that homosexuals be elevated to a privileged status and Eurocentrism be replaced with Afrocentrism. He has even gone so far as to refuse to appoint a cadre of openly homosexual senior counselors for incoming freshmen, as Yale’s organized perverts have demanded; and when Black students erected unsightly shanties on the campus as a protest against South African apartheid Kagan reminded them that the structures were in violation of university rules.

Kagan is a Jew. So is student Jonathan Adler, the editor of the Yale Free Press, generally considered a conservative and politically incorrect periodical. Dinesh D’Souza, the author of one of the most scholarly critiques of the excesses of Political Correctness, Illiberal Education, is an Indian. Not every publicist with a politically incorrect voice is non-White, but non-Whiteness helps. Most White, male academics who still retain their freedom of thought are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech, lest they be condemned as “racists,” “anti-Semites,” or what have you.

Among the PC cadres themselves Blacks are at least as noticeable as the Jews, but not as influential; the Black cadres, with their often ludicrous ideas about history and their bizarre attempts to assert an African identity, provide the comic relief and the muscle for the movement, while the Jews — assisted, of course, by the feminists, sodomites, etc. — provide the brains.


Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon . . . in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish.

It is not just the disproportionate presence and influence of Jews which justify calling Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon, however. It is Jewish in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish: that is, because the propaganda of human equality and of cosmopolitanism which validates it is Jewish in origin, because the principal off-campus support for the movement has come from the Jew-controlled entertainment and news media — and because the foundations for it were laid in a horrendously cruel and bloody war fought to serve Jewish interests and advance Jewish sociopolitical theories.

The reaction studiously avoids mentioning any of this, of course, and it avoids attacking Political Correctness at its roots. In fact, it accepts the same axioms that its PC opponents do: namely, the axiom of equality and the axiom of cosmopolitanism. It believes in “diversity” and multi-culturalism — in moderation, of course. In his 1991 address to Yale’s freshmen Kagan gloated over the fact that the university, once virtually all White, had been transformed into a mirror of America’s multiracial society. He said that Yale’s new “diversity is a source of strength and it should be a source of pride as well.” His restrained warnings not to scrap Western culture entirely just because it was built by dead, White, European males are usually accompanied by praise for the increasing attention being paid to Black studies and other PC areas of interest. He supports Yale’s program of compulsory roommate assignments for freshmen, in which an effort is made to mix races as much as possible in the dormitories, and he says that he is happy that upperclassmen are not resegregating themselves to any large degree.

The same general pattern is to be found at most of America’s universities. On one side are the nutcase weirdos, the hate-crazed dykes and fags, the dashiki-clad Blacks nursing their resentments, the Red Guardists raging incoherently at the White, male, heterosexual world; and on the other side are the cooler heads counseling a slower but surer strategy for destroying the White world. Most of the former are too silly to be taken seriously; the latter, however, by appearing to champion the cause of sanity and moderation manage to preempt most of the opposition to the lethal principles the former represent while embodying those same principles themselves.

It really is a tragedy. America once had some truly great universities. They not only turned out scholars; they also imbued those who passed through them with a certain sense of identity, with a feeling for the race’s past and a sense of responsibility for its future. They helped with the business of sorting out values and fixing priorities.


[O]ne cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.


Greatness cannot exist with egalitarianism, however. Most of America’s universities are beyond redemption today. One can put down the loonies and chase the freaks and aliens off the campuses, but one cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.
The universities will, however, be a battleground through the coming years, and the combatants will not be just the PC cadres and the reactionaries now pretending to hold them in check; there also will be those who understand the fundamentals and fight on that basis. Perhaps one day we all will be grateful to the minions of Political Correctness for having drawn for us in such bold and clear strokes the real meaning of egalitarianism and thereby give us the impetus to do what is necessary to deal with this disease of the soul.

1 comment to The Destruction of the Academy

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>