Andrew Jones Jones can be reached for comment
at his e-mail address, [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Andrew Jones
The argument that the American higher-education system has been
subsumed by liberals is usually laughed off by the mass media and
the intellectual elite. But the leftist takeover of the university
is real. This quiet revolution has effectively removed half the
political spectrum from discussion at one of the most important and
impressionable times of our lives.
The fate of the conservative liberal arts professor is indeed a
sad one. The brave are suppressed by hostile department leadership
and administration. Leftists have no respect for informed dissent
““ they are driven solely by a desire to destroy the message
they find offensive. Is it any wonder that our own campus is almost
wholly devoid of any proud or vocal Republican or conservative
professors?
The famous rallying cry of the Clinton administration said the
makeup of the Cabinet would “look like America.”
Let’s apply Clinton’s standard to this university
““ why doesn’t the UCLA faculty teach “like
America?”
More than anything, UCLA’s strong leftward lean ““
imitated throughout the nation ““ is a reflection of the old
adage “Those who can, do; those who can’t,
teach.” It’s a nasty saying, but it also fits higher
education to a T. Those who could did ““ get a real job, that
is. Those who couldn’t went to grad school.
The only problem is not that it ignores the power of teaching.
It was Lenin who noted “Give me four years to teach the
children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
Too many Marxist relics have taken this philosophy to heart,
gleefully infecting the prostrate, unwilling student body with
their intellectual gonorrhea. They have inculcated young,
idealistic and credulous students with the false notion that they
alone can change the world.
A typical example of campus communism is a Beverly Hills
Marxist, whom we shall refer to only as “Professor
Wolf,” that has been spreading his peculiar brand of
dangerous inanity for decades, untouched by the outside world,
encouraged by all and criticized by none.
In light of the political composition of the public ““ at
least 50 conservatives for every Marxist ““ shall we expect to
see a mass hiring of conservatives to balance out the grossly
overrepresented campus cohort of Commies?
Illustration by ED OYAMA/Daily Bruin To be fair, selecting
professorial candidates by a political litmus test would be
frighteningly close to quota systems. Requiring that the political
makeup of a department reflect the general breakdown of thought in
the population would be certain to spark an uproar from the
politically biased faculty. Yet these same professors tout the joy
and wonder of racial quota systems bent on achieving a similar
change … in the category of ethnicity.
Of course, there is no such litmus test applied in the hiring or
tenure process. Or is there? Remember now, the proof is in the
pudding.
If there are no such requirements being applied, then where are
the conservatives at UCLA? I know of a single one who dares speak
out ““ finding another is like a perverse version of
“Where’s Waldo?”
The idea that “there’s just no conservatives in the
business” is rubbish. The political breakdown of the nation
guarantees that at least some conservatives would be interested in
teaching, that at least some would pursue doctorates, and that at
least some would take hat in hand and offer their services to such
fine, egalitarian institutions such as ours. Perhaps not in numbers
approaching those on the Left (who, as noted earlier, found the
cold winds of reality in the wider world a little harsh and
retreated to the cozy cocoon of teaching), but still in measurable
numbers at minimum.
So I ask ““ what the hell happened to them? Were they shot
on sight? Taken away to a Stalinist reprogramming labor camp and
brainwashed into extolling the virtues of diversity?
Or, more likely, were they turned away, time after time, made to
understand, if not in so many words, that conservative thought and
speech is welcome in principle, but not in fact?
The homosexual community celebrates yearly, with the requisite
fanfare, a “Coming Out” week. Perhaps the conservative
academic community should acknowledge their marginalized situation
and celebrate their own “Staying In” week. Such an
event would at least highlight the discrimination and isolation
they receive at the hands of our higher-education establishment,
committed more to a diversity of skin tone than a diversity of
thought.