Harvey Mansfield Laments the Decline of Higher Education, and Succinctly Summarizes the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive

The June 1-2, 2024 edition of The Wall Street Journal includes an interview titled The Long View of Higher Ed's Decline. Harvey Mansfield, the subject of the interview, may go down in history as the last conservative professor at Harvard. The entire interview deserves careful study, but two of Mansfield's points should be emphasized:

1) The combination of lowered admission standards and grade inflation throughout our higher education system has had a negative impact not just on the quality of college education but also the competency of the work force; when objective standards are discarded, excellence is no longer desirable or even measurable.

2) Mansfield provided a succinct summary of the difference between a liberal in the classical sense (an all but extinct species now) and the progressives who have taken over the Democratic Party: a liberal acknowledges America's flaws, but considers America to be redeemable and is proud to be an American; a progressive has a "loathing for his country. It goes beyond embarrassment to real dislike of America, and in a way, therefore, of themselves, because after all they're Americans."

Conservatives are often labeled "anti-intellectual," but an essential part of the intellectual life is the search for objective truth, and the willingness to engage in robust debate is part of that search. If you are so convinced that you have discovered the absolute truth that you are no longer willing to even listen to opposing views then you are not an intellectual, no matter how many college degrees you have. The extent to which progressives deride the value--or even the existence of--objective truth is jarring, and their unwillingness to consider opposing views is a major threat to our way of life: it has become commonplace for Left-controlled colleges to either refuse to let conservatives speak, or else to enable "protesters" to disrupt conservatives who are allowed to speak.

Three years ago, I noted that Critical Race Theory has infiltrated our education system to disastrous effect: 

If you are not familiar with Critical Race Theory, it is not difficult to find the source material and understand its Marxist, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-American underpinnings. Here is a good summary from Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, a 2001 book from Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic: "Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law." 

I graduated from law school and passed the Ohio bar exam, which means that I am quite familiar with both the strengths and limitations of our justice system. I know from firsthand experience that our system is flawed, but that it is also the best such system in the world. I do not want to replace it with a system based on a Marxist theory that seeks to undermine "the liberal order...legal reasoning...and neutral principles of constitutional law." Those sound principles that Critical Race Theory seeks to subvert and destroy are what separates this country from such failed and failing states as the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba. 

Proponents of Critical Race Theory recklessly assert that without Critical Race Theory we cannot have a fair and honest reckoning with our past. That is false, but very much in keeping with the narrow, binary thinking of the proponents of Critical Race Theory: according to them, everything is either racist or antiracist, so if you oppose Critical Race Theory then you must be a racist who refuses to acknowledge evil acts and suffering that are woven into U.S. history. I reject such binary, simplistic, and incorrect thinking.

The undermining of "the liberal order...legal reasoning...and neutral principles of constitutional law" is a foundational principle for self-proclaimed "progressives," including those who conducted violent insurrections on college campuses targeting Jews in general and Israel in particular. It is neither a surprise nor a secret that Iran is funding these campus insurrections; the fact that self-proclaimed "progressives" gladly take money from an Islamist theocracy that persecutes not only Jews but also women, homosexuals, and other minority groups demonstrates that the insurrections are not about justice for Gaza (or justice anywhere) but rather about destabilizing and overthrowing American democracy. The self-proclaimed "progressives" are deluded enough to be believe that they are fighting the evils of colonialism, which makes them the proverbial "useful idiots" serving Islamists who could not care less about--and, in fact, oppose--the "progressive" agenda.

As Mansfield noted, the decline of higher education results in a general societal decline. We see this in the work force in general, and in particular in the Left-dominated media outlets that shape public opinion in ways that threaten our freedom and our way of life. 

Perhaps nowhere is the general societal decline more evident than in our government. Former World Chess Champion turned political activist Garry Kasparov astutely noted that the United States used to be about striving for excellence, but recent Presidential elections have been about choosing the lesser of two evils. We see that yet again in this election cycle, with Republican Donald Trump--whose character flaws are well-documented--facing a Democratic Party in search of an identity and a competent candidate: first the Democratic Party attempted to prop up an obviously senile (in the practical if not clinical sense) Joe Biden, and after that misguided effort failed they anointed Kamala Harris, whose pronouncements and policy positions align with the morally bankrupt "progressive" agenda that is a major threat to Western civilization. This election is not about excellence and it is not about saving democracy; it is about choosing the lesser of two evils, and hoping that in four years both parties will present us with better options.

University Presidents Who do not Consider Calls for Genocide of Jews to be Code of Conduct Violations Should Resign or be Fired

In a Congressional committee hearing, Representative Elise Stefanik asked the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT a simple question: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the school's code of conduct or rule regarding bullying or harassment, yes or no?

Each president flunked that very simple exam by not answering "Yes, calling for the genocide of Jews violates our code of conduct regarding bullying or harassment." University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill--who testified that the answer depends on "context," implying that calling for the genocide of Jews is not bullying or harassment unless those calls lead to actual genocide--subsequently resigned, though she will retain her position as a tenured member of the university's law school; her continued employment as a professor teaching the next generation of lawyers is exhibit A of why tenure should be abolished, or at least not granted without any limitations. There is so much talk about "microaggressions"; how is a Jewish student--or any student who opposes the genocide of Jews--supposed to feel about having a professor who does not think that calling for the genocide of Jews violates the school's code of conduct or rule regarding bullying or harassment? Will the University of Pennsylvania create "safe spaces" for students who are not comfortable being taught by Magill?

Harvard President Claudine Gay and MIT President Sally Kornbluth have thus far neither resigned nor been relieved of their duties. The Congressional testimony of these three university presidents is just a snapshot of the moral bankruptcy of self-proclaimed "progressives" that has been exposed by their reactions to Hamas' October 7 mass casualty terrorist attack.   

Anyone who thinks that Representative Stefanik's simple question was a trap or a political trick should simply replace "genocide of Jews" with "genocide of Blacks," "genocide of women," or "genocide" of any group other than Jews, and then ponder how those university presidents would have replied. It is obvious that they would have immediately said "Yes." It is inconceivable that any college campus would tolerate marchers and protesters chanting slogans calling for the genocide of Blacks, women, or any other group--except for Jews. 

As Representative Stefanik said in response to Magill, "This is the easiest question to answer 'yes,' Ms. Magill."

It is disingenuous and ludicrous to assert that these university presidents are trying to protect free speech; the only speech that is "free" on college campuses today is speech that rigidly adheres to self-proclaimed "progressive" talking points. Those talking points justify any form of "resistance" against "oppressors," so because white people in general and Jews in particular are classified as "oppressors" in the "progressive" taxonomy the university presidents cannot conceive of how or why calling for the genocide of Jews would violate any campus rules.  

We saw the same kind of flawed thinking last year after Kyrie Irving made an antisemitic social media post. Anyone who defends what Irving did should also be prepared to defend, as I wrote at that time, a social media post promoting "a video filled with vile, hateful stereotypes of Black people claiming that slavery never happened, that Black people worship Satan, and that Black people are responsible for the suffering of white people, who are actually the original and true Black people." It is obvious that a social media post promoting such a video would be universally condemned; to act otherwise because the video slurs Jews is to reveal that many people view Jews as less than human, and thus not deserving of basic human rights.

The problem here is much bigger than the morally obtuse and indefensible Congressional testimony of three university presidents; the problem is that self-proclaimed "progressives" have assaulted and corrupted large portions of our education system, our media outlets, and our political discourse. Until people who possess moral courage and moral clarity reform the education system, the media outlets, and our political discourse, the raging fire that could destroy our society will continue to spread. It is not enough to put out a brush fire here or there; the resignation of one university president--or even three--will not solve the larger problem: noxious ideas and movements that have gained widespread acceptance must be refuted and rooted out. It is not surprising that hundreds of Harvard professors have spoken out to defend President Gay; anyone who has been indoctrinated by flawed conceptions is going to find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand why those conceptions are flawed.