Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

The latest shame of the academy is a vote by the Rutgers University New Brunswick Faculty Council calling on the administration to rescind its invitation to Condoleezza Rice as the speaker at the university’s graduation ceremonies. Rice is scheduled to give the commencement address this coming May. The professors explained their position in these words:

Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in (the Bush) administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. [She] at the very least condoned the Bush administration’s policy of “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding. A Commencement speaker … should embody moral authority and exemplary citizenship. An honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.

No one called out the lack of tolerance for any view different than their own other than columnist Juan Williams. The African-American liberal journalist, himself a veteran of the civil rights movement and author of the classic Eyes on the Prize, was simply enraged at the faculty council’s statement and vote. Williams wrote:

Rice holds a Ph.D. in political science. She has taught college for decades. She was Provost of Stanford University. She worked her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South to the highest echelon of world power and politics.

But according to the Rutgers faculty council, all of that is negated by her service in President George W. Bush’s administration.

Williams disagreed with many of the positions Rice took as national security advisor and secretary of State under George W. Bush. Nevertheless, Williams says that she deserves the honor, and that her life and career should be an inspiration to all students, as her life “personifies the American dream.” The decision, he added, is simply one that stems from a “disgraceful double standard” by liberals, who have nothing but “hatred for black conservatives.”

Indeed, he writes: “Black Americans must be obedient liberals on all things or risk being called a race traitor or an Uncle Tom.”

Williams asks a rhetorical question: Is the faculty afraid to hear her views because they might not be equipped to refute them? The answer is “of course.” They believe that only leftist views — i.e., the truth as they see it — should be heard by those they teach. Why confuse inquiring minds with ways to see the world that are different than those of the Left?

Those opposing her, he writes, are nothing but “pompous jackass professors.”

For more evidence that many professors — in this case, historians — are exactly what Williams calls them, note the second farce to appear in recent days: an amicus curiae brief in a case before the Supreme Court, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. John Rosenberg has written a first-rate contribution dissecting the fallacies of those who support affirmative action — you can read his long version here, and a shorter one at Minding the CampusHere is the gist of his answer about what affirmative action results in on a campus, and why it is a completely wrong-headed policy:

Under affirmative action preferred minorities are, of course, given preferential treatment because of their race or ethnicity, but the rationale for the preference is not to benefit the minorities but the whites and Asians who are exposed to them. “White students interacting with African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans sometimes come with stereotypes about these minorities,” Lee Bollinger, former president of the University of Michigan, told the Michigan Daily (quoted here). ”That kind of breaking down of expectations is the essence of what a liberal education is all about.” Bollinger did not address the evidence that admitting less qualified minorities who proceed to cluster at the bottom of their classes actually reinforces stereotypes of underperforming minorities.

Rushing to defend affirmative action, the brief by 75 historians was written to help the policy’s advocates in an effort to convince the justices of the Supreme Court why affirmative action should be upheld. Among the 75 are leading lights of the left-wing academy, including the red-diaper baby at Columbia Eric Foner Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, Annette Gordon-Reed of Harvard, Glenda Gilmore of Yale, Ira Berlin of the Univ. of Maryland, and many other scholars of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction.

The list is made up, one might say, of the big guns in the history profession. Basing their case on the 14th Amendment, they argue:

The history surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrates that the Amendment’s Framers intended to eliminate special burdens on racial minorities’ ability to seek legislative change such as the enactment of race-conscious affirmative action. 
In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, newly freed slaves found themselves unable to influence the legislatures of the former Confederate states. On one side, freedmen were bounded by Northerners, some of whom were not yet interested in granting blacks the franchise. 
On the other side, freedmen who sought to persuade their neighbors and countrymen to support their reform initiatives and policy goals faced systematic exclusion, as well as outright violence, from Southern Democrats and former Confederates hostile to the notion of black freedom — let alone self- determination. Northern blacks, most Northern white Republicans, and the small number of white Republicans and Unionists who lived in the South supported the freedmen’s efforts.

They are claiming, in other words, that the 14th Amendment is violated by a state when the legislature passes a law prohibiting preferential treatment based on race. But the historians in their brief are addressing history to try to prove affirmative action is necessary. In particular, they refer to what took place after the end of the Civil War. Schools in the Reconstruction states were created for the “freedmen,” which they argue proves that “race-conscious” actions were not intended to be prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

Actually, the policies enacted then were meant to prohibit discrimination based on “previous condition of servitude,” i.e., slavery — and race was not used as a criterion for the schools of the time. Yes, the slaves were black — but those who opposed it opposed slavery per se, not just slavery when imposed on blacks. The language used in particular avoided racial categorization.

The historians argue: “[T]he Amendment precludes a state from imposing special burdens on a minority group’s ability to access the political process.” So, the real question rests on whether or not a university can demand standards for admission that all students must meet before being admitted, or whether such standards can be lowered for those who happen to be in a racial group other than white — and who would not be admitted if the standards for most high school graduates were imposed on them.

Is being subject to the same standards as whites or Asians really a “special burden,” since it would demand equal treatment by all, not special treatment for those of one racial group?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
How unfortunate that Black Americans have
Gone from plantation slaves to slaves of the
Democratic Party. And those like Condi Rice
Who've managed to free themselves find the
Whip cracked on them by liberal white masters.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
One half expects to hear "We'll take the blacks and the Chinamen, but Irishmen need not apply."
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Of course this particular brand of liberalism DOES in fact believe Jim Crow still exists and that it has simply gone underground. The fact libs no longer have institutions of systemic exclusion like Jim Crow doesn't stop them from using words like "institution" and "systemic."

There is little doubt there is continuing segregation today which is a direct outgrowth of our nation's past. The problem is how much of this today is willful and self-imposed. That segregation creates a culture and cultures have value systems and one culture in always going to be compared to another because one will always have superior value systems. That's just the way culture operates. It is not a question of access to institutions but access to winning values. By the time these black kids get to college that has already been pre-determined.

Henry Gates is symbolic of this problem. He is chief editor of the "black culture" web site The Root. At The Root, one can commonly read articles about the best places in Europe for blacks to visit and how black athletes did at the Winter Olympics while you have ads for black dating services.

No one is making Gates do that, nor edit articles where the vast majority come to the conclusion whites have inferior morals.

When you have a culture which commonly has black awards, black literary anthologies, black literary symposiums, black this and black that, it's probably time to stop saying someone is making them do that.

When one is dedicated to self-segregation and at the same time wants to succeed in the larger world, failure is inevitable because those are mutually exclusive concepts. Saying the solution is for whites to stop acting like whites won't work any more than saying blacks have to stop acting like blacks.

Success must follow value systems that enable success. If you enable race then race is what you will get and it is what black folks have. It is a kind of a Catch-22 and there are no solutions that one can mandate but that is exactly what people want to do in yet a second Catch-22. Do something - anything, they say.

Affirmative action hurts the intended beneficiary. It's like expecting a woman who spends her formative years on the lesbian music circuit to succeed when thrown into the larger music industry. The competition and talent pool is much stiffer than the 2% which previously allowed being gay to trump the actual music.

Well, science and math will not congratulate one for not being white once one enters college. That is something that should've been dealt with prior to college and is why so many blacks are not entering college on their own merit. Only failure can result. Young black kids have to get off the "black" circuit and enter the mainstream during their formative years. That is a role only parents can play.

I'm trying to imagine myself growing up as a lesbian musician and heading for where the water is shallowest so I can swim better or growing up black and rejecting anything seen as overtly white, which is pretty much everything. It just won't work. You have to go for the deep water right off the bat or you will surely drown when you get to the steep learning curve that for you, is a drop off.

The fact liberals are as willing to assume a failure of "white culture" as they are to dismiss a failure of "black culture" shows there is in fact a type of racism at work. In fact there is no "white culture." Being majority is not the same as ideological supremacy and that is where libs go off the rails because there are no "white culture" web sites that announce how many points a white player scored in the NBA that day.

There are no white anthologies, white literary symposiums and white awards. Time to wake up and see who's segregating who.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (30)
All Comments   (30)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Free speech at universities is threatened by the intimidation and intolerance of stunted intellectual zealots. Thought police combatting dissent on campus demean the intellectual capacity of students and defy the institutions' function. Respected black leaders (Condoleezza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, MD) deserve recognition and admiration for academic and personal achievement… because they earned it on their own and on their terms in the spirit of the "self-made man", the theme of a speech delivered by Frederick Douglass historians might know. "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." Or, on the subject of EQUALITY of All MEN BEFORE THE LAW, he expressed, "What the Black Man Wants"…
“What shall we do with the Negro? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don’t disturb him!" Boston 1865
http://www.frederick-douglass-heritage.org/speech-what-the-black-man-wants/
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
@ Mayday, I confess to not having read any book by Frederick Douglas, but the quotes you cite and others convince me that he was a brilliant man. His clarity, both moral and linguistic, puts to shame so much written by the liberal professoriate.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
In connection with my comment posted earlier, this was posted on Drudge today.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/16603/
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It is they who are using a racist argument."

"... the brief reveals the left-wing bias of the major figures in our academy, and reveals how they use our history to argue for racial measures today that are quite different from the ones created by Congress after the Civil War, which were meant to aid those whose civil rights had been taken from them."

Related to this push for special treatment and never-ending retribution is a deliberate campaign to malign and purge historical events and figures, motivated by a combination of neo-communist spite and a one-sided political agenda. Notwithstanding their greatness, their has been an increasing effort in the academic world to denigrate the Founding Fathers and their achievements. Columbus as well. If we're going to actually address the topic of affirmative action, don't forget the bigger picture of what's going on right now in classrooms at all levels. They are being indoctrinated and demoralized non-stop, steeped in socialist, Marxist teachings beginning when they are very young, with fundamental American principles being rejected, having now become subversive. This monolithic, one-party ideology is strongly ingrained in many young Caucasian minds too (and minds of all ethnic or racial origins), and they'll never be properly equipped to mount an effective counter strategy until they see that. It can only get worse until an organized campaign to respond to this emerges. Home schooling and being pushed to the fringes is not a long-term solution.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Teaching White European Christians and Males to hate themselves as well as all minority groups to hate White European Christian Males is the number one objective of our Education system today.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Forget today, it's been the number one objective of our Education system since at least the late 1700s, especially thanks to Rousseau's Emile, his role alongside other Philosophes for the French Revolution, as well as Voltaire and Diderot's six-step plan to basically destroy Christianity, one of which involved, yes, taking over the university system and subjecting it to Atheism.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
And yet, right here on this website, the race card is thrown in our faces with Henry Gomez sneering "nativist" and insinuating that we dislike Rubio because of prejudice.

I urge Mr. Radosh to speak out against this as well.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Rubio is the one pandering to Identity Political Groups. Rubio is the racist.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
The historians are being dishonest. The arguments against slavery were always based on the principle that all men are created equal. The criticism of American society was based on its failure to live up to its creed. There was never anyone who would have proposed the idea that the clear meaning of the fourteenth amendment and the civil rights bills of the 1960s were affirmative action for blacks. That idea is crazy. In essence they are saying that in 1868, congress passed the fourteenth amendment because they wanted to favor blacks rather than to prevent discrimination against them. They are actually saying it was based not on the principle that all are created equal, but based on the notion that blacks should be favored. Had it been proposed in those terms it never would have been passed.

What the statement by the professors reveals about their politics is that for them, affirmative action is about relieving their shame at being white and not about making blacks equal partners in America. It is patronizing and self-centered.

The civil rights movement was about creating a color-blind society. It was not about creating a Byzantine system of preferential treatments based on an elaborate schemes of competing victimhoods. To see things that way is a total distortion of the history of civil rights legislation.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ron Radosh is one of those "pompous jackass professors" for his vicious character assault on Diana West, (someone he disagrees with).

As Ron said in his book Commies, the charge of McCarthyism is a slander used to silence people. Thanks for the tip Ron.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
@Escape Velocity, thank you for sending me off to discover Diana West, which then led me to Jason Raimondo and his enlightening article on Ron Radosh in the"Anti-War" blog. I have a lot of reading to do, not that I didn't before. I have to learn how to hyper-link. Raimaondo's article was fascinating regarding Radosh and the neo-cons. By the way, please read M Stanton Evans' books on Soviet Agents in FDR's Admin. and his book on McCarthy.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have read a couple of M Stanton Evans works.

I also highly recommend Harvey Klehr's work in this area.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
And Diana West's book, American Betrayal.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I remind readers that the schools established were for former slaves, and were not specified as being only for African-Americans.

That would be a much more compelling observation if it turned out that a lot of white former slaves attended these schools. Are you saying that is the case? Was there even one white student, even one that had never been a slave, at any of these schools?
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nah. AA is just more Dem patronage.
Simply rewarding loyalists.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Rutgers' posse of progressive professors is simply terrified of Condi Rice and the influence her address could have on all students, not just black ones. She's a remarkable woman, brilliant, accomplished, a talented concert pianist and beautiful, too. She's just getting the same treatment anyone with her attributes would get if they happened to be conservative. It's the conservative argument that has to be silenced because they fear that the inherent logic within that philosophy just might seduce their students away from the mindless intellectual doldrums of the left. A compelling figure like Rice is the last person they want to put forth the conservative argument. A knuckle-dragging, drooling white man with a lascivious leer is the image of conservatism promoted by the left, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.

As for affirmative action - well - golly - gee - without it there wouldn't have been an Elizabeth "High Cheekbones" Warren.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
FNC has never, ever stopped Juan from expressing a liberal opinion it should be noted. It has never tried to shut him up or curtail his airtime.

We are the ones who believe in liberty and universal human rights.

They, are merely feudalists with dreams of fiefdoms and serfs. They must be called out and treated with the contempt they deserve.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All