Americans have a powerful sense of fair play. When it is violated, they react accordingly.
Since before the founding of the US, Americans have had a very keen sense of fairness. “No taxation without representation,” was the cry of revolutionary Americans who only wanted a fair shake from an English despot and took up war only as a last resort. Americans of all backgrounds love American stories of rags to riches, which are far rarer in places with actual or implied caste systems. Justice Clarence Thomas came from a life of poverty in the Jim Crow south to reach the pinnacle of success in the legal world. America, with all of its weaknesses, gave him a path to succeed so completely against all of the odds.
Americans do tolerate a little deviation from the straight and narrow. Michigan, the NCAA football champion, had a guy on the sidelines whose job was to communicate the other team’s signals that he had pilfered from previous games. Michigan is at no risk of losing its title, and it appears more Big Ten (or maybe it’s already Big Twenty) teams apparently did the same. I remember when the Bears’ ground crew would open the big gates of Soldier Field to have enormous winds off of Lake Michigan blow against the opposing team’s field goal attempts. Baseball has a rich history of where pitchers hide their chemicals to get better control of their pitches.
But when cheating goes too far, Americans cannot stand it. One who is neither a Trump fanboy or a committed anti-Trump partisan would see that the former president is being persecuted and prosecuted while others who did worse are given a pass. Hillary Clinton no doubt lost American secrets to China and Russia in her homebrew server system. No prosecution for her. Several former intelligence heads admitted to lying to Congress. They will learn about America’s toughest prisons by watching the Discovery Channel. Joe Biden had a mafia-style shakedown racket of foreign entities and had more secret documents than Donald Trump and in more places but he will be given a pass to eat ice cream and regale fellow nursing home residents about his bravery during the Civil War. And such imbalances infuriate honest Americans. As many have noted, each additional suit filed against Donald Trump only increased his popularity. Americans have a sixth sense for total unfairness, and each of the cases against the former president sets the unfairness meter off-scale.
It is with the above in mind that I once again turn to my disgusting, discredited, and disfigured alma mater, Harvard. No private business or entity is bound by First Amendment rules. By having a speech code, a university legally sets itself apart from complete freedom of speech and expression. While the government may be limited in curtailing one’s speech, a private body like Harvard is not. What bothers me and many others about Harvard is their rigged system. Antisemitism on campus is a problem because one is absolutely forbidden to be anti-anything else (except white men who are fair game everywhere today, and wrongly so). Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in the past invited Saeb Erekat, a PLO stalwart, to give webinars. Now apparently in a form of legacy, it has invited his daughter, Dalal Saeb Iriqat, to speak at the school. From the mouth of the junior Jew-hater:
“We will never forgive the Israeli right wing extreme government for making us [emphasis added] take their children and elderly as hostages…The Israeli public need (sic) to realize that their own government had caused all this bloodshed and they remain the ones responsible for this escalatin [sic] and losses of civilians lives. ”
You see, it was the Jews’ fault all along—all of that raping, beheading, murdering, burning families alive, etc of Jews. Like the Wisconsin judge who blamed the woman for what she wore for getting herself raped. So on the one hand, a free speech purist would say that the K-School can bring any speaker it wants. The problem at Harvard, at other universities, and on the left in general is that such is not the case. Would Harvard tolerate other speakers who violated its speech code and official gobbledegook about respect, inclusion, not hurting others, etc?
Would Harvard tolerate speakers who said that blacks have brought upon themselves their lousy economic and social situation by having too many children out of wedlock and having too many fathers behind bars? Would Harvard allow a speaker to describe the problems faced by trans youth, including higher levels of suicide, sterility, persistent medical issues, and violence against others? Would Harvard allow a speaker who gave solid evidence of the destructive effect of illegal aliens and an open border on American communities and resources? Would Harvard allow a speaker who suggested the transfer of all Palestinians to other Arab countries and away from Israel? Middle-of-the road conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Heather MacDonald require heavy police protection on campus and are routinely interrupted and threatened during their talks. Anyone further to the right would not stand of chance of being invited or of being given the opportunity to finish a sentence.
When I was at Harvard decades ago, I heard Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Moral Majority founder Reverend Jerry Falwell speak. Someone threw a bag of ersatz blood on the stage when Cap Weinberger spoke and the crowd attacked Falwell with questions, but in the end both spoke and each was able to handle the crowd without police intervention or any threat of violence. Today, students and faculty do not want to hear anything beyond what they believe. A student a few years back wrote in the Harvard Crimson that the university should not be allowed to invite speakers whose opinions are not accepted. Even now, when the late and not-so-great President Gay ordered up a committee on antisemitism, on cue, faculty members wrote to her that such a committee could harm academic freedom.
If Harvard is willing to respectfully and safely host KKK members as well as anti-trans activists, then bring on the PLO scion. But if “anti” is only directed towards the Jews because intersectionality makes blacks, gays, non-Jewish women, trans, Arabs and illegal aliens untouchables, then the time has come for the wrecking ball for Harvard. Either one can attack all minorities equally or you can attack none. Americans in general and Jewish Harvard grads in particular are sick of Jews and Israelis being the only minority group that the university feels is kosher to attack. Would the Kennedy School bring a disciple of Meir Kahane to explain the financial and transportation logistics of transferring the Palestinians in toto to Jordan and other countries? Of course not.
When Illinois Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, a town next to our own, my father, who had fled Germany in 1939, said that they should be allowed to march. He argued correctly that any speech code might work at the start but in the end it would backfire. We see it at Harvard and at other former quality universities where blacks cannot be bigots, no matter how offensive their anti-white statements and actions (separate graduations, for example) are. We see it where only Jews can be attacked verbally and physically on campus with no punishment. Gay’s replacement, Dr. Alan Garber, sent out a letter about antisemitism and islamophobia. There is no islamophobia on campus; it is a canard to make it look like the Jews are not the only ones being threatened and marginalized. That is a lie. Harvard contributed to America’s growth and success for nearly 400 years. For the benefit of the citizens of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the well-being of the Republic, the time has come to make it into a parking lot.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member