Effects of campus liberalism far-reaching
By Daily Bruin Staff
Nov. 19, 2001 9:00 p.m.
 Ben Shapiro Shapiro is a second-year
political science student bringing reason to the masses. E-mail him
at [email protected].
Click
Here for more articles by Ben Shapiro
Universities have a serious problem. The type of liberalism so
heavily favored by the intellectual elite has crossed the line.
Professors throughout the educational world are supporting
murderers and terrorists; they are justifying despicable actions
because of the political philosophies of the actors. Murder,
slaughter, and terrorism are OK, they say, as long as they are
directed at law-enforcement officials or civilian Westerners.
It’s fine as long as the murderer is anti-capitalist,
anti-establishment or anti-conservative.
This frightening ideology has not only blurred the line between
liberalism and radicalism ““ it has destroyed it. 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.
The case of Sara Jane Olson has revealed the ugly and dangerous
thought processes of the professorial ilk. Olson, 54, stands
accused of the attempted murder of Los Angeles Police Department
officers. Prosecutors say that the former member of the radical
Symbionese Liberation Army planted bombs under the cars of two
police officers in a “wide-ranging conspiracy to overthrow
the government” in 1974 (“Judge may reject olson guilty
plea,” LA Times, Nov. 2). Olson pleaded guilty to this charge
on Nov. 1, signing an agreement stating that she “is pleading
guilty because she is in truth and fact
guilty.” However, she stated immediately afterward,
“I pleaded to something of which I am not
guilty.” Why this sudden reversal?
Ostensibly, she fears that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11
would hinder her ability to get a fair trial. With broad public
support for government institutions, she fears that her attempted
murder of police officers would seem like … (gasp) attempted
murder. Never mind that given a trial by jury, she could
reject jurors she believed to be biased. And her guilty plea
couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the
prosecution had “an overwhelming case” against her.
Despite Olson’s guilty plea, support from her comrades in
the educational community comes streaming in. “I support Sara
Olson,” says Mary Brent Wehrli, a professor of social work at
UCLA. A self-described radical, Wehrli has taught at UCLA for eight
years. “Olson has been denied the right to a fair
trial,” says Wehrli. Erwin Chermerinsky, a professor of law
at USC, concurs ““ his name, as well as Wehrli’s, is on
the Sara Olson Defense Fund Committee’s official Web
site.
Would these passionate defenders of public justice support an
anti-abortion radical suspected of murdering an abortion doctor?
Highly doubtful. Support for Olson is not based on an
underlying fear of the criminal justice system. It is based on
nothing less than support for Olson’s anti-government,
anti-establishment, radical ideals. These ideals can, according to
the educational establishment, justify even murder.
Support for Mumia Abu-Jamal is another example of dangerously
twisted thinking among the intellectuals at
universities. Abu-Jamal is a former member of the Black
Panthers and an influential writer and radio host, as well as a
backer of the radical black group MOVE. He is also a murderer.
He murdered Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, shooting
him in the chest and in the neck. A jury of 12 citizens, two of
them black, all 12 accepted by Abu-Jamal himself, sentenced him to
death, and he currently awaits execution on death row. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court have both heard
Abu-Jamal’s evidence and upheld the judgement of the jury
(“Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves punishment, not attention,”
Daily Bruin, Feb. 10, 2000).
On campus, Mumia Abu-Jamal is a hero. Wehrli says, “His
case is a blight on the democratic process we all believe
in.” If so, how was he convicted? “Information which
would have changed the outcome of the trial was not
admitted,” she states, “and the judge appeared to be
racist and not open-minded ““ not unbiased.” This
despite a strong case against Mumia, including eyewitnesses, people
who heard Abu-Jamal scream, “I shot the motherfucker and I
hope he dies,” and powerful scientific and ballistic
evidence.
Still, Albert Boime, a professor of art history who has taught
at UCLA since 1978, maintains, “Mumia is definitely innocent
““ he deserves another trial. He was unjustly persecuted, no
doubt about it. He was probably persecuted for reasons ranging from
personal reasons, such as his frequent verbal attacks on the police
department, to political reasons, such as his defense of MOVE,
which infuriated the police. They had a vendetta against
him.” This faith in the innocence of a convicted
murderer is touching to be sure ““ it is highly unlikely that
these same professors would support the killers of James Byrd. Only
professors would be able to excuse the murder of a policeman by a
Black Panther on ideological grounds.
This perverse and twisted thought process has been stuffed down
the throats of the students with respect to the Sept. 11 attacks
““ and it has to stop. University professors blame the attacks
on American foreign policy, American prosperity, the capitalist
system, or any other Western ideology. The killing of more than
6,000 Americans is dismissed by saying that America has been asking
for it. Says 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.” Aamir Mufti, a Muslim professor of comparative
literature at UCLA, states, “I am skeptical that we have even
learned anything from this attack” (“Panel gives
insight into Sept. 11,” Daily Bruin, Oct. 4).
These are the people who will shape the youth of this country.
These are the men and women who will forge college students into
adults. They excuse murder. They promote terrorism. They
stretch their arms toward their vulnerable students, leading them
into moral oblivion. This is not a free speech issue; free speech
cannot justify the willful endorsement of murder. This is an issue
of good versus evil.
Their thoughts and actions cannot justify hatred and violence.
Promoting these can only indoctrinate the students with hatred
toward America, morality and Western values. Now is the time
to demand that those shaping the future elite consider the
ramifications of their actions.
