The presidents of Harvard, Pennsylvania, and MIT appeared before a House committee on Wednesday to respond to their shameful inaction in the face of anti-Semitic rhetoric and attacks on their campuses. Their cowardly responses were not as committed as those in charge of them clearly intended, which only led to accusations against their institutions.
In fact, the entire nation has watched in horror over the past few months as students have shown themselves to be in a state of moral confusion inculcated by universities and their DEI departments that promote the “oppressed against the oppressed” narrative that defines terrorists. As well as the oppressed and the women who were raped by them, as well as their oppressors.
The House Education and Workforce Committee hearing was called to examine the specific steps the three universities took after their campuses embraced Hamas terrorists who invaded Israel on October 7, but the entirety of higher education was put on the line. .
Everything from the rot of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and neo-segregation on college campuses to the rigid and intolerant ideological partisanship in academia, funded by nefarious foreign entities, is laid bare for the nation to see.
For three institutions combined I took around $10 billion in taxpayer money in grants and contracts between 2018 and 2022 was a dereliction of duty. Recipients of government subsidies of this Olympic magnitude have a responsibility to hold themselves accountable. On Wednesday, schools failed miserably.
>>> College presidents have just shown America their moral cowardice
Presidents Claudine Guy of Harvard University, Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, and Sally Kornbluth of MIT have essentially stuck to giving name, rank, and serial number. They repeated carefully rehearsed phrases, clearly pre-approved by the lawyers and communications teams.
Jay especially kept repeating the same phrases, not bothering to find different variations. One formula she stuck to, as if it were a mantra that would save her from the bad men and women who held her back on the platform, was: “We are deeply committed to free speech, but not when it violates our policies against free speech.” Bullying, intimidation, and harassment. Then we have strong disciplinary processes.”
Jay has invoked “operations” in other contexts as well, though the diminishing returns turned the term by the end of the ordeal into an object of ridicule.
“I didn’t ask about you Processes“I’m asking,” spat an exasperated Texas Rep. Nathaniel Moran at one point an act. How many students were disciplined? How many have been held accountable?
Cockroaches.
In response to questions about the expulsion of foreign students, who clearly made up a large part of the anti-Jewish demonstrations, Jay’s magic words were: “Our international students are a tremendous source of pride at Harvard and part of our strength as an institution. But we hold these students accountable for the same set of disciplinary processes that we hold All of our students are responsible for her. This was repeated over and over again, which only shows that someone sat down with her and texted her.
“There is no place for anti-Semitism at Harvard” was another mantra chanted over and over by Gays, despite overwhelming evidence showing Jewish students were harassed at Harvard and the school’s long and shameful history of hatred of Jews.
But despite her robotic answers, Jay didn’t have the scariest answers that day. That dubious distinction goes to Magill or Kornbluth. It’s an oversight, so I’ll leave it to the reader to decide.
Magill came in response to Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York. Stefanik asked: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Pennsylvania’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment?” “It’s a decision that depends on the context,” a smiling Magill eagerly confirmed.
“Is this your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of the Jews depends on the context?” Stefanik said incredulously. “That is easier yes, Ms. Magill!”
Kornbluth’s mic drop moment came in an exchange with Utah state representative Burgess Owens, the former NFL star who has the Superbowl XV ring to prove it. Kornbluth asked about the separation between the dorms and other spaces on campus.
>>> The root cause of the craziness on campus is older than you might think
“You have black-only housing. Is it permissible for whites to create white-only housing where minorities are excluded?” Owens asked.
“It’s not exclusionary; “It’s actually a positive choice by the students,” Kornbluth said almost cheerfully.
“We’re talking about segregation, it’s happening on your campuses!” responded Owens, a polite and generous black man who was born in 1951 and thus must have seen his share of racism.
“There’s a difference between sending an exclusionary message and looking to other students for shared experiences and support,” said Kornbluth, who may be highly accredited but seems to ignore that this is exactly how racists who supported Jim Crow would have defended segregation.
On second thought, it may be best to prepare in advance with your attorneys and communications officers. Magill in particular has been under intense pressure to resign, and if her tone-deaf response doesn’t convince the board that “context” requires her departure, there won’t be much will.
Because, as the hearing made clear, if institutions of higher education indoctrinate young people with the narrative favored by the left and exclude professors, students, and conservative ideas, most Democrats will hide behind them.
But these institutions, and those running the intervention, are clearly oblivious to the blow this unbalanced political approach is inflicting on their all-important brand. If potential employers, and the country as a whole, suspect that graduates from elite institutions will know no philosophy, no arts, no science—no beauty, no truth, no good—but only how to “awaken” one another, who will hire them? they?
In recent years, college presidents have been increasingly vocal about the moral corruption that exists within their institutions. From scandals involving fraudulent admissions practices to systemic issues with sexual misconduct and harassment, these leaders are shedding light on the unethical behavior that has permeated many college campuses. As a result, there is growing scrutiny and demand for accountability within these institutions, with college presidents at the forefront of the movement to address and rectify these issues. This exposé of moral corruption is sparking important conversations about the values and integrity of higher education, and the responsibilities of those in positions of leadership.