Blackman is a fourth-year philosophy student.
By Jordan Blackman
Ben Shapiro’s column on the effects of campus liberalism
shows that he is willing to stoop excruciatingly low in order to
accuse professors of being evil. (“Effects of campus
liberalism far-reaching,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Nov. 20) It
insults the intelligence of readers by using simplistic metaphors
more appropriate for scaring third-graders than informing or
challenging college level thinkers.
The column is also is an affront to honest conservative thought
because Shapiro’s analysis is consistently and strikingly
shallow.
Shapiro has no shame in accusing the supposedly “liberal
professorial ilk” of being evil. Regarding the view that
Shapiro claims are heavily favored by the intellectual elite, he
warns: “This ideology cannot truly be called liberalism
““ it can only be called evil. And this evil must be
eradicated before it spreads and engulfs the aspiring youth of our
nation in its dark and shadowy tentacles.” Is Shapiro
suggesting most professors should be eradicated? Would he like to
have them gassed or given the more humanistic lethal injection?
Does Shapiro propose Peter Parker or Clark Kent save us from such
dastardly minions of the dark lord?
Shapiro spends the rest of the column trying to show how evil
the professors are because most of them ostensibly support
terrorists and murderers. But since that is a rather bold (some
might say absurd) claim, he has to misrepresent what our teachers
think. He does this by raising three exceptionally intricate
political and legal issues ““ each beyond the scope of
Shapiro’s column ““ and grossly oversimplifies both the
issues themselves and the stances taken by the professors he
cites.
I will not attempt to thoroughly examine any of these issues,
nor will I provide a complete rebuff of Shapiro’s arguments.
Instead I will make a few quick points about Shapiro’s most
egregious indiscretions.
Shapiro inexcusably omits that Sara Jane Olson is accused of a
crime that took place 25 years ago. In the interim quarter century
she has been, according to neighbors, a model citizen ““ a
teacher, a mother, a wife. She only decided to accept a plea after
the judge ruled that the events of Sept. 11 would not effect the
trial, which strongly indicates she believes that recent events
would preclude her from a fair trial. Oh, and the prosecution, they
are using the T-word: terrorist. I don’t know if she is
guilty, and I’m not sure if she should be prosecuted, but I
certainly don’t think anyone who believes she won’t be
able to get a fair trial is evil. And when a professor of law at
USC thinks she has been denied a fair trial, I tend to think he
might just know a thing or two about that case and about the law
that Shapiro does not.
This is especially the case since Shapiro steamrolls over
salient facts. For example, on Nov. 14, nearly a week before
Shapiro’s column was printed, Sara Jane Olson asked to
withdraw her guilty plea and stand trial.
Shapiro also focuses on the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal,
determining that “Only professors would be able to excuse the
murder of a policeman by a Black Panther on ideological
grounds.” But his own quotations of professors show that is
absolutely not what is going on. When professor of history Albert
Boime says “Mumia is definitely innocent ““ he deserves
another trial. He was unjustly persecuted, no doubt about
it,” he is not saying “˜I don’t mind if Mumia did
it, I think that cop deserved to die,’ but this is exactly
how Shapiro interprets him. I don’t know if Mumia is guilty,
and I suspect Shapiro doesn’t either; but I do know that if a
person believes Mumia is innocent, then he is not justifying murder
by defending a man he believes to be wrongly sentenced to
death.
Finally, Shapiro claims that “University professors blame
the Sept. 11 attacks on American foreign policy, American
prosperity, the capitalist system, or any other Western
ideology.” In support of this, he offers two quotes, neither
of which say anything of the sort.
From Marc Trachtenberg, a professor of political science at
UCLA, “Despite the death of millions in the Middle East, we
opted instinctively from the very start to turn a blind eye.”
The attacks aren’t even mentioned in this quote, and it
certainly does not blame any ideology for the attacks. So that
quote is irrelevant. Next, Aamir Mufti, a Muslim professor of
comparative literature at UCLA, is quoted as saying, “I am
skeptical that we have even learned anything from this
attack.” This could mean a number of things. Maybe Mufti was
unsure if we learned anything about how precious human life is.
Maybe he thinks we didn’t learn anything about how important
security is. In fact, the column the quote is from indicates Mufti
was referring to “the prevalence of hate crimes in this
country” (“Panel gives insight into Sept. 11,”
Daily Bruin, News, Oct. 4). So none of this is relevant to
Shapiro’s claim.
So when Shapiro accuses professors in general of “willful
endorsement of murder,” after failing to present even a
singular example, I can’t help but be both amused and
angered. And when he calls this “an issue of good versus
evil,” after spreading such unfounded vitriol, I can’t
help but wonder which side he is on.