The Death of Free Speech on Campus

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Howard Tzvi says:

    Sadly the cowardice exhibited by Brandeis was applauded by the media and even some Rabbis

  2. Toby Katz says:

    The liberals take very, very tender care of the feelings of feminists, gays, left-leaning blacks, environmentalists, American Indians, and all other certified victim groups. They do it because leftists make sure fellow leftists never have to confront opposing points of view.

    When it comes to Muslims, however, there is a completely different dynamic at play. Liberals know perfectly well that women in Muslim countries are the most oppressed women in the world; they know that gays are stoned in Muslim countries; they know that Muslim Arabs routinely slaughter and enslave black Christians in sub-Saharan Africa. Liberals do not actually, in their heart of hearts, agree with the Muslims.

    Rather, there two other reasons they coddle Muslims. One reason is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” — liberals hate the West, Arabs hate the West, so for now, they are natural allies.

    But that’s not the major reason. The second and far more important reason they coddle the Muslims is that liberals live in abject fear. Vis-a-vis the Muslim world, the whole liberal western elite is infected with a bad case of “Stockholm syndrome” — afraid to do or say anything that would offend the Muslims, in case they perpetrate another act of terrorism. They are literally afraid, physically afraid. So, like kidnap victims, they “fall in love” with their captors, who hold the power of life and death over them. Some would call them craven cowards, others would say they are merely being prudent.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s friend, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered in broad daylight in Amsterdam — one of the world’s most liberal cities — for the crime of making a documentary telling the truth about how Muslims treat women.

    Liberals live in fear of the same thing happening to them. They are terrified of being murdered — not metaphorically but literally — stabbed, bombed, shot, beheaded — by Muslims. That’s why they go along with CAIR’s pretense that it is just another civil rights group making sure nobody hurts Muslims’ feelings. Pure, abject, stomach-wrenching fear.

  3. Yehoshua Friedman says:

    It may be time to declare universities obsolete, an overblown and overpriced method of getting an education. There are plenty of online resources to get all that knowledge AND the methodology of asking serious questions. There is a demand. There will eventually be a a supply. The problem at the moment is that the universities are run by a privileged elite with a monopoly on the academic recognition. You can know a lot and express yourself well without ever going to a university, but you can’t get jobs that require academic qualifications and you can’t publish in professional journals. The academic mafia therefore has you branded as a quack if you don’t toe their line. A grass-roots revolution against this tyranny is needed. For us Torah Jews and other people with moral ideals, there is a clear and present danger to the integrity of kids who go into universities where all sorts of nonsense goes on which can morally debase people and make them vulnerable to the leftist brainwashing. Chazal said, Israel only worshipped idols in order to make sexual immorality permissible.

  4. Andrew says:

    As a matter of law, there is no right to have your speech sponsored by a private entity, like a university or a yeshiva. However, exposing students to a diverse array of views is a good idea, and can make them a wiser and more thoughtful person.

    Shouldn’t we admit that the secular universities cited in this article (though imperfect advocates of free speech they may be) do a better job exposing their students to diverse viewpoints than most Orthodox yeshivos?

  5. Yaakov Menken says:

    I think Andrew has touched on a much more fundamental difference between a university and a yeshiva. The goal of a (secular) university is not to lay claim to one particular philosophy or truth, but just the opposite. It is supposed to be an open market, rather than tied to a particular political world-view. The universities claim to welcome all world-views.

    The goal of a yeshiva, on the other hand, is to find and teach the Emes. Like any other school with an openly-declared philosophy and worldview (Catholic, Protestant, and Islamic schools among them), the fact that yeshivos do not pretend to be universities does not excuse the hypocrisy of universities that fail to be true to their own proclaimed mission.

  6. Dave says:

    Andrew – the purpose of Yeshivas is not to expose students to diverse viewpoints – it is to teach and learn the Torah that has been passed down through the generations from Moshe at Sinai to us today.

    On the other hand, secular universities all view themselves as paragons of diverse thought where students who have accumulated their three R’s through high school (which is questionable too) can now broaden their minds and expand their knowledge by being exposed to the the great thinkers of the past and present. The idea that certain ideas are allowed and others barred from campus should be anathema to academia. But the liberal mindset that has overtaken most of the university world has lost its taste for debate, and prefers to hold onto only their ideas and ideals which become then “settled” and undiscussable.

    So no, the secular bunch do a bad job at their job and the Yeshivas are irrelevant to the conversation.

  7. Ori Pomerantz says:

    I fully agree with what you wrote here. I do find it interesting to see this was published in Yated Ne’eman, which I thought was published for a culture whose higher education institutions (the Yeshivot) also filter the influences on their students. Or am I missing something?

    Note: I realize this comment is somewhat snarky, but I am honestly asking. I’d rather ask questions and be thought ignorant or stupid, rather than keep quiet and stay ignorant.

  8. Mr. Cohen says:

    Arabs and Muslims donate millions of dollars to American universities.

    These universities will not allow their donors to be offended,
    considering how difficult it is to find multi-million-dollar donors.

  9. lawrence kaplan says:

    I understand the difference between a Yeshiva and a University Still, the description of Sandra Korn, based on her writings, seems to me to apply not only University students. Particularly, the last two sentences, “In sum, ‘she’s swallowed an ideology whole and learned to spit it back. Her unoriginality, her predictability, are matched only by her colossal self-assurance,'” seem to me to accurately characterize many Yeshiva students– and Alumni.

  10. Ori Pomerantz says:

    I apologize, my last comment was misleading. It isn’t just the difference between the stated ideology of a Yeshiva and the stated ideology of a University. Looking from the outside, I’d have expected Haredi society to be much more sympathetic to the idea that people should be protected from toxic ideas than mainstream society. I am glad to see that isn’t the case, at least among the English readership of Yated Neeman.

Pin It on Pinterest