The intellectual genocide of elite universities
A lesson in "context," taught free where others pay $80,000 per year.
Such was the gift from the presidents of three of the most prestigious universities in the country, as they testified before Congress. All of the same mind, a hive mind.
Genocide, they say, depends on context, like it's a word in a crossword puzzle.
Nazi goons in Nuremberg had more sense.
They claimed, “Befehl ist Befehl," just following orders. They never had the gall to suggest the Holocaust wasn’t genocide, depending on context.
That, perhaps inside the gas chambers, the Jews were at fault for breathing.
But even these chambers were contextual.
They marked the terminal point of a sequence: terror, persecution, forced labour, extermination. The rhetoric wasn’t the genocide.
Only the conduct was.
Adopting the logic of these university leaders, it only escalated to genocide when the gas nozzles were activated.
But we don't have extermination camps on campuses.
Just strong rhetoric and modest persecution.
The modern university, like the Third Reich, runs like a well-oiled machine, cranking out technocrats so embedded in the system it's hard to tell if they are cogs or architects.
Hannah Arendt, in her classic "Eichmann in Jerusalem," noted the frightening normality of such men and women, arguing that evil often comes from those who don't seem to choose sides, who, above following orders, follow the law.
These university presidents, often just figureheads, shaking hands and raising funds, don’t make the rules.
But they are beholden to the unseen bureaucracy, the overlords who took over the human resources and legal departments, whose main job is to weaponize diversity in order to normalize discrimination, hate, and injustice.
To banalize evil.
Unlike the Zyklon B used in the extermination camps, the gas in the university echo chambers is just hot air.
Filling up their safe spaces, suffocating dissenting ideas in a cloud of self-infatuation, and inflating the grades and egos of students and faculty in gender studies and the like.
Earlier this year, ChatGPT — itself a product of modern academia — decided it would rather trigger a nuclear bomb than use a racial slur, justifying that the latter is never morally acceptable.
This starkly exemplifies what can be called "diversity supremacy," where moral hierarchies prioritize a self-serving set of diversity ideas, often at the cost of justice and truth.
It's when Harvard shifts from "veritas" to "vanitas."
The pretence of meritocracy in universities has given way to the iron rule of diversity.
Six of the eight Ivy League presidents are women.
It's not misogynistic to suspect many are diversity hires.
Let's face it, when they disgraced their institutions in front of the American public, with empty, elaborate speeches, it was obvious DEI had its hand in it.
Lawyers' puppet-strings were evident, as was the fear of lawsuits and a tribal instinct to keep peace with campus factions.
Diversity hiring is no joke.
It lands you people not cut out for their roles.
It leaves those very same people trapped in positions for which they're unprepared.
The permanent revolution of cultural Marxism requires as many of those arms as it can recruit. From #MeToo to BLM and beyond, the overarching strategy is to overturn the status quo and get the "right" people in charge.
Once in control, it's time to pacify and normalise the new regime.
And when it's as simple as acknowledging that genocide is wrong, it becomes obvious that the leash is short, and the muzzle is tight.
That's leadership for you. And what about the rest of university life?
Universities have lost their direction; nobody dares to question anything.
Remember, tenure shouldn't mean you stop thinking.
Faculty should be weeding out the nonsense, not nurturing it.
We need critical race theory in our schools as much as we need alchemy and astrology.
But once again, context matters.
These ivory tower elites chant "abolish whiteness" as if it's gospel, gutting any trace of meritocracy, as if they’re synonymous.
In its place, they've engineered a system that recognises words as violence, unless you're talking about Jews, it seems.
Then, suddenly, it's all about context.
Universities, trigger-happy to jump on anyone calling a man a "man," are giving a free pass when it comes to their favorites, especially those dressed in the business-casual academic robes of structural antisemitism.
Even the events of Oct. 7haven't shaken this stance.
They avoid confronting the calls for Jewish genocide simmering within their walls, as it exposes them.
Let a bunch of "deplorables" shout about wiping out the same Jews, and watch how swiftly they change their skins.
This isn't about legality; it's about the universities’ conduct and the inconsistent application of standards. Perhaps a deliberate effort to foster divisiveness and social erosion?
Federal aid to universities was once a concern for conservatives.
They feared control would follow funding.
Now, they reluctantly seem to embrace it.
Because the alternative is even worse.
The fight shouldn't be about joining the ranks of protected groups, but dismantling these biased structures.
Otherwise, we risk leaving an increasingly smaller group to bear the weight of injustice.
Which group, it really depends on the context.
Cauf Skiviers writes about philosophy, economics, politics, and things that lie between the inconceivable and the undesirable. His reports also appear at: https://cauf.substack.com.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.