Leftist influence deteriorates education

Johnson is a second-year Ph.D. student in clinical
psychology.

By Chris Johnson

The original intent of a university was to be the proving ground
of ideals, utilizing diverse philosophies in an adversarial system
as catalysts in the dispassionate pursuit of knowledge. However,
since the 1960s, college campuses have been used primarily as the
vehicle for social change according to a leftist-radical
agenda.

Professor Robert Watson’s rebuke (“Link between leftists,
intellectuals no accident,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Nov.
8) of Andrew Jones’ column (“Campus
suppresses “˜right’ education,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 31) is a tacit acknowledgement that intellectual
diversity has been on sabbatical since the Port Huron Statement was
crafted.

Characteristic of the new left’s frequent neologisms,
several statements in the professor’s article warrant further
examination.

The fact that Watson’s father was targeted during the era
of McCarthyism, and subsequently “vindicated unanimously in
the U.S. Supreme Court” is largely the result of a uniquely
Western ideal called the rule of law. Additionally, the fact that
Watson had the privilege of attending an Ivy League university,
made a career in academia, and had his sentiments conveyed in
print, are also by-products of classical Western ideals.

The modern realization of these ideals was manifest in America
when a group of men founded, by precept and example, a rather
imperfect nation based on freedom from government tyranny. However,
by Watson’s conventions, acknowledgements of this sort are
the very “jingoistic” and
“self-congratulatory” comments he and others on the
left disdain.

Whether Watson has an appreciation and patriotism for this
nation is unclear based on his brief statements, but no doubt he
will admit that many like-minded colleagues roaming the halls of
academia are loathe to articulate any respect for our
nation’s positive attributes. There are, I’m sure, a
few very reticent exceptions.

As paragons of open-mindedness, radical-leftists shun the flying
of the American flag on campus and the playing of the national
anthem prior to university sporting events. Such acts of allegiance
are reserved for simple-minded, unsophisticated people like
myself.

The American university has become a place where conservative
guests fly in under the radar, unsponsored and usually greeted with
protest. Political correctness, whether or not admitted by faculty,
is now the guiding intellectual precept on campus.

Since the professor speaks so highly of leftists in academia, it
is worth examining the deterioration of the core curriculum.
Watson’s own closing words indicate he recognizes that many
college students are unprepared to think critically. Prior to the
1960s, all students such as Watson at Yale would have probably been
required to take Latin and Greek, year-long courses on Shakespeare,
classic philosophy and other aspects of the dreaded Western
civilization. Now, thanks to the radical-leftist enlightenment, we
have classes on pornography, Marxism (the good kind of course), and
the equally dreaded multiculturalist curriculum.

But much to the dismay of those on the left, there are in fact
many intellectual conservatives. The reason most college students
remain unaware of the foundations of conservative thought is
because this philosophy has been suppressed, and professors have
intentionally kept their students ignorant of views opposite their
own.

In the last thirty years, we have seen the emergence of
independent “think tanks” where true intellectuals have
found a venue for scholarly research (The American Enterprise
Institute, The Hoover Institution, The Hudson Institute, The
Ashbrook Center and The Heritage Foundation). The only reason such
entities exist is because conservative intellectuals have been shut
out of modern academia.

And Professor Watson purports that America is
“indoctrinating” its youth? Look no further than UCLA
for examples of indoctrination. It is rare to find a college
student familiar with names or works of Ludwig Von Mises, Clarence
Thomas, Fredrick Hayek, William Gladstone, Walter Williams, Sir
Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley Jr. or Thomas Sowell. I would be
interested to know how much coverage Watson’s own English
department dedicates these authors.

Watson’s asserts that radical-leftist intellectualism is
to be approached with some sort of high-minded reverence for its
enormous capacity to help make society better. This is tantamount
to arguing that leftist have a monopoly on improving the greater
civic good.

The challenge to this assumption can be best articulated by
envisioning those firemen who were running up into the World Trade
Center as it was exploding. One can imagine them, with their
“jingoistic” American flag patches, and
“self-congratulatory” unit medals, running into the
burning building. I wonder how many leftist-radical intellectuals
were running into the building with them? Watson,
“yikes” is right.