"Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of the battle has already been won."
Soviet-style ideological censorship and repression has broken out at Brandeis University, and is so blatant and heavy-handed that approximately one-third of a professor's class and the student newspaper itself have spoken out on behalf of a professor targeted by the administration for sanctions. Original story published November 6th, 2007 in The Justice. Additional coverage in The Brandeis Hoot.
Brandeis University disciplined longtime politics professor Donald Hindley last week after concluding that he made "inappropriate, racial and discriminatory" comments during a class in late September 2007 which violated University nondiscrimination policy, according to documents obtained by The Justice, which bills itself "the independent student newspaper of Brandeis University". Professor Donald Hindley was notified of the action against him last Tuesday in a letter from Provost Marty Krauss (who is a female), which he provided to The Justice.
The sanctions include monitoring and forced diversity re-education. First, Provost Krauss assigned Assistant Provost Richard Silberman to begin attending Hindley's lectures in his POL144a course (the Latin American politics course in which the infraction allegedly occurred) to "monitor" Hindley's lectures for speech that might violate University nondiscriminatory policy. Second, the University will also require Hindley to complete anti-discrimination training.
Provost Krauss has refused to specify the specific complaints, citing the need for "confidentiality". She explained that confidentiality is necessary because "it's important that people have the courage to come forward once they have a complaint". Of course, "confidentiality" is also increasingly used by various institutions in order to conceal, defend and perpetrate institutional abuse.
However, it has been learned that at least one complaint appears to have stemmed from Hindley's reference to the term "wetbacks," a derogatory expression used to describe illegal immigrants who have crossed the Mexican border. Hindley defended his discussion of the term, saying he had used it to describe racism of a certain historical period. Throughout American history, he said, "When Mexicans come north as illegal immigrants, we call them wetbacks."
Hindley, who is in his 47th year teaching at the University, called the charges against him "ridiculous" and "totally out of the blue." He said that he has appealed to the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee and that his case has been accepted.
Many students enrolled in his course also voiced opposition to the sanctions. In a show of support for Hindley, a group estimated at around 13 students, about a third of the class, walked out before Hindley's lecture last Thursday (November 1st) . The students marched from Rabb to the Bernstein-Marcus administration building, where they met briefly with Krauss before returning to class. "We asked to know what was going on, why we weren't informed," said Lily Adams, Class of '09, who participated in the walk-out. She added: "It's become a sort of guilty until proven innocent. There's no dissenting view or no forum for students to speak out on his behalf". It was at that meeting that Provost Krauss played the "confidentiality" card.
Adams also denied Hindley had used the term in an offensive context. "If he had made comments that were legitimately racist, the whole class would have complained," she said, adding, "It was never him saying, 'This is what I call them,' or, 'This is an appropriate term.'"
The Justice has come out in editorial support of Professor Hindley. In a column entitled "Professor Hindley Deserves Better", they do support some measure of confidentiality and discretion in handling such cases in order to prevent unnecessarily prejudicing the reputation of a target of such complaints. However, they are highly critical of the lack of transparency. The Justice was particularly disappointed that an investigation seemingly proceeded behind Professor Hindley's back for the better portion of a month, and that Professor Hindley was only informed a week before the Provost's official letter was sent out. A distinguished professor deserves better treatment.
The Justice is also disturbed by the possibility, raised by Professor Hindley himself, that he has been targeted with sanctions for other reasons as well. Professor Hindley has also implied that other factors such has his stance on Israeli tactics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or a dispute over his salary may have prejudiced the investigation process against him. In other words, the "wetback" incident may have been simply used as an excuse to slap down a "dissident" professor.
It's important to note that many of the college adminstrators and provosts were themselves college students during the Vietnam War, and took part in the SDS-style protests engulfing so many of our campuses. They became indoctrinated with Communist-style thinking. Now they are in positions of authority on many of our campuses, and with then has spread the neo-Marxist cancer of political correctness. Jewish conservative talk radio host Michael Savage excoriates these people as "red diaper doper babies".
An essay entitled "Political Correctness - The Revenge Of Marxism", posted on the Western Voices World News website, explores this phenomenom in greater detail. The author suggests that Communism didn't really die in Russia in 1991; it merely changed its address and took up residence in America. But the author also makes the case that the seeds were sown earlier. Here's a critical excerpt from the essay:
I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. Even in the heyday of the East Bloc, there were active dissident groups in these countries. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right.
But how is that possible? Don’t we have free speech here? And we have no Gulag?
The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation.
What happened is that while the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we deemed it to be less threatening. The “hard” Marxists had intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they would “bury” us. The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil, capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels. Perhaps we should call it “stealth Socialism” instead of soft Socialism.
One of the readers of Fjordman blog once pointed out that we never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2. He was thinking of the former Soviet Union and the countries in Eastern Europe, but he should probably have included their Marxist fellow travellers, their sympathizers and apologists in the West. We never fully confronted the ideology of Marxism, and demonstrated that the suffering it caused for hundreds of millions of people was a direct result of Marxist ideas. We just assumed that Marxism was dead and moved on, allowing many of its ideals to mutate into new forms and many of its champions to continue their work uninterrupted, sometimes filled with a vengeance and a renewed zeal for another assault on the capitalist West.
We are now paying the price for this. Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.
The Left have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, or perhaps we should call them ideological mercenaries. Although the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn’t work out, their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a different word for “divide and conquer,” pitting various ethnic and cultural groups against each other and destroying the coherence of Western society from within.
At the very least, the people living in the former Communist countries knew and admitted that they were taking part in a gigantic social experiment, and that the media and the authorities were serving them propaganda to shore up support for this project. Yet in the supposedly free West, we are taking part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration every bit as radical, utopian and potentially dangerous as Communism, seeking to transform our entire society from top to bottom, and still we refuse to even acknowledge that this is going on.
And this censorship is positively Orwellian in nature. Repression is re-marketed as "tolerance", perversity represented as "diversity". It is complete moral inversion, similar to the inverted morality prevalent within large swaths of America's black community. Stated bluntly, evil becomes good, and good evil.
The good news is that America's rising generation now in our schools may be wising up and taking notice. The establishment may have finally overplayed its hand.